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 .
The amendment filed 7/31/26 has been considered and entered. Claims 3 and 14 have been canceled. Claims 17-19 have been added. Claims 1,2,4-13 and 15-19 remain in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Considering the amendment filed 7/31/26, the 35 USC 112 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, the following rejection has been necessitated by the amendment.
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.
Claims 1,2,4-6,8-11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (11/799,153) in combination with Li et al. (2020/0287252).
Chang et al. (11/799,153) teaches a battery casing including a casing body (claimed pack case), a plurality of battery cells (claimed plurality of batteries) and a fire protection plates (claimed first and second heat absorbers as they are located between the batteries, on the sides of the batteries and within the case (col. 1, 52-60; col. 4, lines 32-65 Figs. 2,4,5).
Chang et al. (11/799,153) fails to teach the absorbent material being a liquid impregnated in the heat absorber instead of being a coating and being vaporized by heat as well as a fragile portion of the pouch that fractures is provided to exhaust gases.
Li et al. (2020/0287252) teaches a heat absorption and heat insulation structure for battery module including a wrappage having a first cavity therein and a heat absorbing agent disposed in the first cavity, the heat absorbing agent being capable of absorbing heat to generate a gas, the heat absorption and heat insulation structure disposed between two adjacent battery cells so if one battery cell experiences a thermal runaway heat generated by the battery cell can be conducted to the heat absorbing agent of the wrappage and the heat absorbing agent with vaporize after absorbing the heat and the gas generated is carried outside the battery cell. As seen in Fig. 3, the wrappage (claimed pouch) includes a groove (claimed fragile portion) to exhaust the gas generated when heat is absorbed during thermal runaway by the heat absorbing agent by opening (claimed fractures). (abstract and [0053]-[0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang et al. (11/799,153) fireproof plate (30) by impregnating the plate with the heat absorbing agent to prevent thermal runaway protection with a groove to exhaust the gas generated when heat is absorbed as evidenced by Li et al. (2020/0287252).
Regarding claim 2, Chang et al. (11/799,153) teaches the fireproof plate being disposed between the at least two adjacent ones of the battery cells (col. 4, lines 33-45).
Regarding claims 4-5, Li et al. (2020/0287252) teaches a heat absorbent material which meets the claimed matrix as well (abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Chang et al. (11/799,153) teaches including an accelerant which is a fireproofing agent that lowers the trigger temperature as well as being fireproof and hence has extinguishing characteristics (col. 13, line 60- col. 14, line 45).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Chang et al. (11/799,153) teaches the fireproof plate being on the inner surface of the side case and located in rows (Fig. 2 and 6 and col. 4, lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 10, Chang et al. (11/799,153) teaches the fireproof plate to be located on the sides of the battery cells (col. 4, lines 45-53).
Regarding claim 11, Chang et al. (11/799,153) teaches the fireproof plate being on the inner surface of the side case and located in rows (Fig. 2 and 6 and col. 4, lines 63-67), but does not teach the absorber to be located in concave surfaces. The Examiner takes the position that whether the absorbers are in concave surface or on a flat side of the pack case would be a matter of design choice absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Regarding claim 17, Li et al. (2020/0287252) teaches the strength of the wrappage (pouch) is low at the groove to allow for the wrappage to open and gas to be exhausted [0057].
Regarding claim 18, Li et al. (2020/0287252) teaches a groove to exhaust the gas generated to the outside of the wrappage (pouch). The groove would meet the claimed notch [0057].
Regarding claim 9, the fragile portion (groove) would overlap the venting device in a first direction.
Claims 7,12,13,15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (11/799,153) in combination with Li et al. (2020/0287252) further in combination with Kuramitsu et al. (11,437,664).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Chang et al. (11/799,153) in combination with Li et al. (2020/0287252) are incorporated here.
Chang et al. (11/799,153) in combination with Li et al. (2020/0287252) fails to teach a vent for removing heat/gases upon thermal runaway.
Kuramitsu et al. (11,437,664) teaches a battery (12) having a vent (24) located between terminals on the upper side of the battery to release gas when internal pressure exceeds a value and the valve is also called a vent (col. 5, lines 29-35 and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang et al. (11/799,153) in combination with Li et al. (2020/0287252) to include a vent for each of the batteries as evidenced by Kuramitsu et al. (11,437,664) with the expectation of preventing thermal runaway.
Regarding claim 7, Kuramitsu et al. (11,437,664) teaches each battery having a vent and the fragile portion can be the valve as it is opened when too much pressure is sensed.
Regarding claim 12, Kuramitsu et al. (11,437,664) teaches each battery having a vent (claimed venting device) and the cooling plate meets the claimed venting guide by providing a heat conducting path between the batteries (col. 8, lines 38-65).
Regarding claim 13, the cooling plate (venting guide) separates the vents in each battery from one another.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the vents are located on each battery and the heat absorber is located between each pair of batteries which would also include the valve/vent of each battery.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,2,4-13 and 15-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued the prior art fails to teach the heat absorbers being in a pouch and the pouch provided with a fragile portion that fractures when internal pressure in pouch increase.
Li et al. (2020/0287252) teaches this as detailed above with the use of a groove (11) in the wrappage.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
