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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 3/18/26. Claims 1 and 3-20 are amended. The rejection of claims 1 and 10 is withdrawn in light of the amendment; however, a new rejection is made over Bieber, below. Claims 1-20 are pending and are rejected finally.
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.
Claim6 6 and 18 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 6 recites the limitation "a respective battery cell" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted as “the respective battery cell”.
Claims 6 and 18 include the word “and” at the end of the first indented limitation. This word, added in the amendment filed 3/18/26, renders the claims indefinite because the first indented limitation now reads: “in such a way that in case of the thermal runaway of the relevant battery cell, and”. The claims no longer describe what happens in the case of the thermal runaway of the relevant battery cell. The limitations will be interpreted as not having the “and” added at the end of the first limitation.
The rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, 7-8, 11, and 14-16 as described in the Non-Final Rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
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 1-4 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bieber et al. (US 2024/0638365) in view of Fuchs et al. (US 2023/0170558).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Bieber teaches a battery cell arrangement for a motor vehicle, or EV module (Figure 4, [0056]), comprising:
multiple battery cells (16), wherein, in case of a thermal runaway, the cells include a thermal hotspot area adjacent to a potting compound layer, or silicone rubber foam layer (17) in the gap between cells, for shielding the battery cells from one another in case of thermal runaway (Figure 4, [0003], [0005], [0172], [0178]-[0180]).
Further regarding claim 10, Bieber teaches that the components discussed above are combined to form a module (Figure 4, [0172]), which the examiner finds is a method for producing the arrangement of claim 1 discussed above.
Further regarding claims 1 and 10 and with regard to claims 2-3 and 11 Bieber further teaches that the potting compound, or silicone rubber foam layer, is thermally insulating and comprises ceramic particles, i.e. ceramic fibers, embedded in a silicone matrix that ceramizes above 250°C ([0227], [0231]).
With further regard to claims 1 and 10, Bieber is silent on the particulars of placement of the silicone rubber foam layer and to the structure of the cells, specifically a releasable degassing opening for discharging gases from a relevant battery cell in case of a thermal runaway.
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 releasable 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]).
Fuchs further teaches that the frame shape of the invention is advantageous in a trigger event such as a degassing opening for discharging gases, i.e. the rupture of a cell ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to form the potting compound and cells of Bieber in the configuration of Fuchs as discussed above in order to manage the degassing opening for discharging gases of a battery cell.
As for claims 4 and 12-13, as is discussed above, Fuchs teaches that the hotspot area comprises the releasable degassing opening, or side rupture area.
Regarding claim 8, Bieber in view of 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 Bieber in view 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, Bieber in view of Fuchs is silent on the relative distance between various cells in the arrangement. However, the examiner finds that it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the cells of Bieber in view 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
Claims 5-7 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bieber in view of Fuchs as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Riley et al. (US 2020/0112009).
The teachings of Bieber and 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, Bieber in view of 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 preformed vent in an area in which it will emit gas through the potting compound of Bieber in view of Fuchs such as suggested by Riley.
As for claim 6 and 17-20, Bieber in view of 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 Bieber in view 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 Bieber in view 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/18/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 10 under Fuchs have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of in view of Bieber, above.
The examiner notes that the amendments to claims 3 and 11 changed the limitations to positively recite the silicone matrix, which was previously optional, thereby necessitating further search and consideration and making the claims proper for final rejection.
As to the arguments concerning the teachings of Fuchs to silicone, the examiner finds that the teachings do not constitute a teaching away but rather are descriptive of the current state of the art. Further, as is seen in Bieber as discussed above, it is known to use silicone foams in EV applications.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights