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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 4/12/23 and 4/26/23 have been considered by the examiner.
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, 3, 5, 7-8, 11, and 14-16 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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 14-16 are rejected because the phrase "in particular" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The limitations limited by the phrase “in particular” are interpreted to be optional and therefore not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The limitation is interpreted to be optional and therefore not given patentable weight.
Claim Warnings
Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fuchs et al. (US 2023/0170558).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Fuchs teaches a battery cell arrangement, or frame (2), for a motor vehicle (Figure 1, [0001]), comprising:
multiple battery cells (1), each of which the examiner finds inherently includes two cell poles or terminals since batteries necessarily include poles or terminals for connection to a load (see MPEP 2112), and wherein the cells (1) each include first and second sides and a height direction between the sides (Figures 1 and 2) and wherein the cells each include a releaseable degassing opening, or side rupture, through which hot gases and soot particles emerge and are distributed over the module ([0004], [0027]);
wherein in the case of thermal runaway, a respective battery cell includes at least one thermal hotspot area provided by the opening discussed above (“hot gases … emerge”);
wherein the battery cell arrangement, or frame (2), includes a potting compound layer, or fire-suppressing layers (4a, 4b), in which a section of each cell (1) is embedded in the direction of the height (Figure 2), and wherein the thermal hotspot area side rupture area is embedded, or enveloped ([0027], [0032]), which is formed by a potting compound, or material, for thermally shielding the battery cells from one another in case of a thermal runaway ([0017]-[0022]).
Further regarding claim 10, Fuchs teaches that the components discussed above are combined to form a module ([0007], [0018], [0031]), which the examiner finds is a method for producing the arrangement of claim 1 discussed above.
As for claim 2, Fuchs teaches that the potting compound, or material, is thermally insulating ([0018]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Fuchs teaches that the potting compound is ceramizing ([0019]).
As for claims 4 and 12-13, as is discussed above, the hotspot area comprises the releaseable degassing opening, or side rupture area.
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.
Claims 5-7 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Riley et al. (US 2020/0112009).
The teachings of Fuchs as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Riley teaches a battery cell arrangement comprising multiple battery cells, or electrochemical cells (8), including releasable degassing openings, or high temperature gas venting areas (20) (Figure 2, [0022]), therein the releasable degassing opening is arranged on the first side of the cells so as to ensure that the vented gas flows through the flame arrestor (10) (Figure 2, [0022]).
Riley teaches that the use of a flame arrestor reacts with components of the gas to remove reactive components and absorb heat energy from vented gas in the event of thermal runaway ([0008], [0012], [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 5 and 14-16, Fuchs teaches the battery cell arrangement of claim 1 including the releasable degassing opening embedded in the potting compound layer and first and second sides, but fails to teach the releasable degassing opening provided on the first side.
Riley further teaches that the venting can occur at preformed vents in the cells, and that the locating of the releasable degassing openings is not particularly limited so long as the gas emitted passes through the associated flame arrestor ([0022]-[0023]).
Therefore, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to provide a performed vent in an area in which it will emit gas through the potting compound of Fuchs such as suggested by Riley.
As for claim 6 and 17-20, Fuchs fails to teach specifically that the potting compound layer is penetrated by gas escaping from the degassing opening.
As discussed above, Riley teaches that the flame arrestor, analogous to the potting compound material of Fuchs, reacts with components of the released gas in order to remove components that are volatile, reactive, and/or toxic ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to vent gas through the potting layer of Fuchs in order to remove components of the gas that are volatile, reactive, and/or toxic such as suggested by Riley.
Regarding claim 7, Riley teaches a degassing channel, or outlet (14), for discharging gas and arranged on the top side of the potting layer (10) (Figure 2).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs.
The teachings of Fuchs as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 8, Fuchs is silent on the specific locations of the poles and the placement of the poles and hotspot in the potting compound. However, the examiner finds that it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange these essential parts of the cells of Fuchs in order to ensure that the assembly functions as needed, for example that the poles can be properly connected to the load and the hotspot can be properly mitigated. It has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI C
As for claim 9, Fuchs is silent on the relative distance between various cells in the arrangement. However, However, the examiner finds that it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the cells of Fuchs in order to ensure that the assembly functions as needed, for example to provide additional space for auxiliary components or increased thermal protection between certain cells. It has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI C
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729