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 Objections
Claims 5-6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 5-6 and 9, it is suggested to amend “expands” to - -is configured to expand- -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
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 2-9 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 2 recites the limitation "the hole". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding dependent claims 3-9, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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) 1-4 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0095356).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu teaches a battery module (220) (paragraph [0052) (see figure 4(a)) comprising:
a battery cell stack (100) in which a plurality of battery cells are stacked (see figure 4(a)) (paragraph [0050]);
a module frame (i.e., case, lid, flat plate) (20, 21, 30) that houses the battery cell stack (paragraph [0033], [0047]-[0048], [0063]); and
a rupture sheet (i.e., plate member) (70) (paragraph [0049], [0056]) formed between the battery cell stack and the module frame (see figure 4(a)), wherein the rupture sheet comprises a shape memory alloy (SMA) (paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu teaches the module frame is formed with a plurality of holes (i.e., connection passages) (40) (paragraph [0048]-[0055]), and the portion of the rupture sheet corresponding to the position of the hole contains the shape memory alloy (see figure 5(a)) (paragraph [0049]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Shimizu teaches the rupture sheet comprises, a plurality of rupture layers (70b) (paragraph [0056]) (see figure 5(b); and a rupture induction member (70a) formed between the plurality of rupture layers (see figure 5(b)) (paragraph [0056]), wherein the rupture induction member is formed of the shape memory alloy (paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu teaches the rupture induction member is formed in a portion of the rupture sheet corresponding to the position of the hole in the module frame (see figure 5(a)) (paragraph [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 10, Shimizu teaches the rupture sheet is formed between the upper portion of the battery cell stack and the module frame (see figure 5(a)) (paragraph [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 11, Shimizu teaches a battery pack (paragraph [0002]).
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(s) 5-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0095356).
Regarding claim 5, the claim merely recites the predictable functional operation of the known shape memory alloy performing its intended venting function. As indicated above, Shimizu teaches the rupture induction member comprising the SMA. Although the specifics as recited in the instant claim is not expressly stated in Shimizu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the activation/opening of the shape memory alloy during battery venting expands during gas venting necessarily produces a dimensional change of the rupture induction member sufficient to deform/expand the rupture sheet and create a vent opening (see figure 5(a)) (paragraph [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 6, the claim merely recites the expected functional relationship between the known structure and the known material from which is formed. As indicated above, Shimizu teaches the rupture induction member comprising the SMA. Although the specifics as recited in the instant claim is not expressly stated in Shimizu, it would have been obvious that the rupture induction member would undergo the dimensional change produced by the activated SMA because such dimensional change is an known an intended operating characteristics of a SMA.
Regarding claim 7, Shimizu teaches the venting hole is formed in plural numbers (see figure 5(a)) (paragraph [0055]-[0056]).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Shimizu teaches the rupture induction member that is actuated by high-temperature gas (paragraph [0035]). Although Shimizu does not teach a temperature of 100 degrees or more, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select temperature of the rupture induction member to corresponds the anticipated temperature of vent gases. The temperature of a rupture induction member, which is made of a SMA, is a known result effective variable that may be selected through alloy composition and processing to achieve a desired activation point. Selecting an opening/expansion point of 100 degrees or greater would have been a matter of routine experimentation absent evidence that the claimed temperature is critical or produces unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In other words, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to incorporate:
all the limitations of claim 1-3, 5 and 7-8, or
Applicant is encouraged to consider amending claim 1 accordingly to place the application in condition of allowance.
The prior art is silent with regards to the combination of features of (1) above. In particular, “the plurality of venting holes are formed in a portion of the rupture sheet corresponding to the position of the hole, and the plurality of venting holes formed in the portion of the rupture sheet corresponding to the position of the hole forms a venting portion.” in combination with the features of claims 1-3, 5 and 7.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2018/0351219). Smith teaches a battery module (abstract) with vent holes (304) (paragraph [0052]) (see figure 3B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights