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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-10 and 12-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 9 recites “wherein the inner subhousing has a first contacting cover in the ejection direction and a second contacting cover in an opposite direction to the ejection direction, and wherein the second contacting cover has greater material weakness than the first contacting cover.” The only support in the instant specification regarding the material weakness is the following:
“The inner subhousing 3 has a first contacting cover 5 with no material weakness in the ejection direction A, and a second contacting cover 6 with material weakness in the opposite direction B,” see instant spec. [0036]
The disclosure of the specification does not have the same scope as the amended claim limitation of Claim 9 given above and, therefore, does not support the claim.
Claims 10 and 12-17 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 9.
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 11 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.
The term “material weakness” in Claim 11 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “material weakness” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Every material has some degree of material weakness to heat, stress, chemical reaction, external force, radiation, etc., therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed “material weakness” is unclear. For the purposes of examination any two or single material can be interpreted to claim limitation of “wherein the second contacting cover has greater material weakness than the first contacting cover.” A first and second contacting materials
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tuomola (US-20180159110-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Tuomola discloses:
A battery cell for an electrical energy storage device with a plurality of battery cells for installation in an electrified motor vehicle, wherein the battery cell comprises (“a motor vehicle with a battery arrangement comprising a battery unit with at least one battery cell,” see [0001]):
a cell core (lithium-ion cell, see [0003]);
and a hybrid cell housing which is configured as a combination of an inner subhousing with an outer subhousing (see annotated Fig. 5 below);
and configured to, in the event of a fault, eject the cell core with the inner subhousing from the outer subhousing (the batteries 3/cells with the indicated inner subhousing are ejected from the indicated outer subhousing in the event of thermal runaway, see [0032]-[0034] and annotated Fig. 5 below).
wherein the inner subhousing has a first contacting cover in the ejection direction and a second contacting cover in an opposite direction to the ejection direction, and wherein the second contacting cover has greater material weakness than the first contacting cover.
As given in the 112b rejection above, the requisite degree of having material weakness is unclear. The claim is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to be met by the first and second contacting cover being any two or single materials. It is the Examiner’s position that the claim as written could be interpreted for the first and second material to be the same material because the same material could have material weakness in one domain (thermal, chemical, brittleness, etc.) that is generally considered a greater material weakness in a separate domain within the art of materials. Additionally note, the contacting cover is interpreted as any material that covers the battery cells with or without intervening structure This interpretation while very broad is determined to be appropriate because the instant specification provides no way of asserting the requisite degree of determining what is meant by material weakness. Tuomola teaches the inclusion of batteries units 200 are disposed in the tank, see [0031]. Fig. 2 shows four contact points (i.e., contacting cover) on the battery units 200. It is the Examiners position based on the interpretation above that any material for the contact points meet the claim limitation. The orientation of the battery units is taught as being random, therefore, at least some first contact points are orientated in the ejection direction and second contact points orientated in the opposite direction, thereby, disclosing the following limitations:
wherein the inner subhousing has a first contacting cover in the ejection direction and a second contacting cover in an opposite direction to the ejection direction, and wherein the second contacting cover has greater material weakness than the first contacting cover.
PNG
media_image1.png
682
1237
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Tuomola teaches:
wherein the outer subhousing is open in an ejection direction and has a seal in an opposite direction (The indicated seal is in a direction opposite to the ejection direction in reference to the floor 2, see annotated Fig. 5 below.),
wherein the inner subhousing with the cell core is arranged in the outer subhousing in such a way that a gas-tight cavity exists between the inner subhousing and the seal and in which, by introducing gas, pressure can be built up which can be used to eject the inner subhousing in the ejection direction (“High pressure gas may be pumped into the tank 1 itself, so that the pressure causes the floor to detach” see [0036] and annotated Fig. 5 below. It is the Examiner’s position that because Tuomola teaches addition of high pressure gas increases the pressure within the tank such that the pressure causes the floor to detach the tank is sufficiently a gas-tight cavity.).
PNG
media_image2.png
737
1369
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Tuomola discloses:
a sliding material located between the inner subhousing and the outer subhousing (One of ordinary skill in that art would readily acknowledge that the high pressure gas that is pumped into the tank 1 slides between the inner and outer subhousing, see [0036]).
Regarding Claim 14, Tuomola discloses:
wherein the sliding material is configured as expanding and/or adhesive material and is configured to flow out after ejection (as the high pressure gas causes the floor to detach during ejection the gas is able to expand and flow out of the indicated outer subhousing, see [0036]).
Regarding Claim 15, Tuomola discloses:
comprising a bead or a groove on the inner subhousing configured to lock the inner subhousing to the outer subhousing in both a retaining and electrically contacting fashion, wherein the bead or groove comprises terminals (electric connection pads (i.e., a bead) that electrically and physically connects the batteries to the tank via the negative/ positive terminals, see [0012] and [0033]).
Regarding Claim 16, Tuomola discloses:
wherein the inner subhousing is configured to penetrate a base of the energy storage device when ejected in the ejection direction (The battery cells with inner subhousings penetrate the floor 2 of the electrical energy supply system in the ejection direction during ejection, see Fig. 4.)
Regarding Claims 17, Tuomola discloses:
wherein the second contacting cover comprises a predetermined breaking point (when thermal runaway is detected the contact pads are electrically disconnected (i.e., predetermined breaking point), see [0033]).
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuomola (US-20180159110-A1) as applied to Claim 9 above and in further view of den Hertog (US-20190337587-A1) and Hoffmann et al. (US-20080196553-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Tuomola discloses the ejection mechanism can be done via a spring-loaded opening of the floor, see [0034]. However, Tuomola is silent to the mechanism of the spring-loading.
To solve the same problem of providing a spring-loaded opening mechanism for a battery (see [0038]), den Hertog teaches the spring-loaded opening and closing mechanism in which the spring is compressed when closed and, therefore, decompressed when closed is a successful and convention spring-loaded mechanism system, see [0038].
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in providing the spring-loaded mechanism of Tuomola in which a spring is compressed when open and decompressed when closed as taught by den Hertog.
Tuomola is also silent toward the spring being electrically conductive.
To solve the same problem of providing a spring-loaded opening for a power supply unit (see [0042]), Hoffmann teaches that having the spring be formed of metal (i.e. an electrically conductive material) is a successful and convention material for the spring of a spring-loaded element, see [0042].
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in providing a metal spring for the spring-loaded mechanism of modified Tuomola as taught by Hoffmann.
Tuomola teaches that when the floor is open by the spring-loaded mechanism acts to electrically disconnect the batteries (see [0033]-[0034]) ,thereby, teaching a contact bypass.
It is the Examiner’s position that the modification of Tuomola above teaches the following limitations:
an electrically conductive spring apparatus that is pretensioned in a gas-tight cavity in such a way that, after ejection, the electrically conductive spring apparatus serves in an untensioned state as a contact bypass,
Tuomola further teaches:
wherein the gas-tight cavity exists between the inner subhousing and a seal (“High pressure gas may be pumped into the tank 1 itself, so that the pressure causes the floor to detach” see [0036] and annotated Fig. 5 below. It is the Examiner’s position that because Tuomola teaches addition of high pressure gas increases the pressure within the tank such that the pressure causes the floor to detach the tank is sufficiently a gas-tight cavity. See also Fig. 5 above.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 5 of the response that the subject matter in amended Claim 9 was similar to that of originally presented Claim 11. Although the subject matter is similar the scope is different and after consideration of the disclosure of the instant specification found not to be supported, see 122a rejection above.
Applicant argues on pages 5-6 of the response that Tuoluma fails to teach the amended limitation of independent Claim 9 of “wherein the inner subhousing has a first contacting cover in the ejection direction and a second contacting cover in an opposite direction to the ejection direction, and wherein the second contacting cover has greater material weakness than the first contacting cover.” This argument is found respectfully unpersuasive. Based on the interpretation provided above (see 102 rejection of Claim 9), it is found that because the instant specification provides no way of asserting the requisite degree of determining what is meant by material weakness any material of the contact point of Tuoluma meets the amended limitations of Claim 9.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights