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 § 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)(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) 1, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by
Lee (US 2023/0299416 A1).
As to claim 1, Lee et al. discloses a battery pack assembly, (abstract) comprising:
a first battery cell group (110b);
a second battery cell group (110a); and
a multilayered shield (200 barrier layer) disposed along a cell stack axis (figure 5) with the first battery cell group and the second battery cell group, the multilayered shield having an inner layer (200a) sandwiched between a first outer layer and a second outer layer (200b1 and 200b2), the multilayered shield (200) including a divider portion disposed axially between the first and second battery cell groups and a folded portion that is folded over the first battery cell group in a first axial direction to axially overlap with an area of the first battery cell group (see annotated figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
420
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 14, Lee disclose the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein the first battery cell group and the second battery cell group each includes at least one battery cell (each of the groups have two cells, see figure above).
As to claim 15. Lee disclose the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein the first battery cell group, the multilayered shield, and the second battery cell group are constituents of a cell stack within a traction battery pack [0003].
As to claim 16, Lee discloses a method of managing thermal energy within a battery pack, comprising:
establishing a divider portion and a folded portion within a multilayered shield (see figure below);
PNG
media_image2.png
420
673
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and positioning the multilayer shield such that the divider portion is between a first group of battery cells and a second group of battery cells along a cell stack axis such the folded portion axially overlaps with an area of the first group of battery cells (see figure above).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 8- 10, 13, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0299416 A1).
As to claim 2, Lee et al. discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein the multilayered shield (200) is a first multilayered shield, and further comprising a second multilayered shield (unnumbered on the left of the figure). While not explicitly stating the first battery cell group disposed axially between the divider portion of the first multilayered shield and a divider portion of the second multilayered shield, a folded portion of the second multilayered shield folded over the first battery cell group in a second axial direction opposite the first axial direction. Lee does disclose that the battery module comprises at least two or more barrier layers, and at least two or more battery cells are located between adjacent barrier layers of the two or more barrier layers [0021]. Therefore repeating the invention would yield the following structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
420
673
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However when repeated the first battery cell group disposed axially between the divider portion of the first multilayered shield and a divider portion of the second multilayered shield, a folded portion of the second multilayered shield folded over the first battery cell group in a second axial direction opposite the first axial direction (first shield points to right, second shield points to left) (see figure above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have multiple barriers because this would delay the speed of heat propagation between adjacent battery cells when a battery cell ignites [0024].
As to claim 17, Lee discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the multilayered shield is a first multilayered shield, and but not further comprising establishing a divider portion and a folded portion within a second multilayered shield, and
positioning the divider portion of the second multilayered shield along the cell stack axis such that the first group of battery cells is axially between the divider portion of the first multilayered shield and the divider portion of the second multilayered shield.
Lee does disclose that the battery module comprises at least two or more barrier layers, and at least two or more battery cells are located between adjacent barrier layers of the two or more barrier layers [0021]. Therefore repeating the invention would yield the following structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
420
673
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However when repeated the battery and multilayer as shown above, a second multilayered shield with a divider portion and a folded portion are formed, and
positioning the divider portion of the second multilayered shield along the cell stack axis such that the first group of battery cells is axially between the divider portion of the first multilayered shield and the divider portion of the second multilayered shield (first shield points to right, second shield points to left) (see figure above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have multiple barriers because this would delay the speed of heat propagation between adjacent battery cells when a battery cell ignites [0024].
As to claim 3, Lee et al. discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 2, wherein the folded portion of the first multilayered shield and the folded portion of the second multilayered shield are spaced from the first battery cell group to provide an open area between the first battery cell group and the first and second multilayered shields (see figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
195
204
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Lee discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 2, but does not disclose the folded portion of the first multilayered shield and the folded portion of the second multilayered shield contact each other.
However it has been held that the configuration or shape of a claimed device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, extending the folded portions of the first and the second to contact each other allow for there to be an increase in surface area of the barrier and allows the heat to transfer.
As to claim 9, Lee discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 2, but not the first outer layer in the folded portion of the first multilayered shield contacts the first outer layer in the folded portion of the second multilayered shield.
However it has been held that the configuration or shape of a claimed device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, extending the folded portions of the first and the second to contact each other allow for there to be an increase in surface area of the barrier and allows the heat to transfer.
As to claim 10, Lee discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 2, further comprising a third multilayered shield, the third multilayered shield having a divider portion directly axially adjacent to the divider portion of the first multilayered shield, the third multilayered shield having a folded portion folded over the second battery cell group in the second axial direction (See figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
420
675
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 13. Lee discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 1, but does not explicitly state a height of the multilayered shield prior to folding over the folded portion is nominally equal to a height of a battery cell within the first group of battery cells plus two times a thickness of the battery cell plus a thickness of the inner layer.
It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
As to claim 18, Lee discloses the method of claim 17, wherein, after the positionings, but not that the folded portion of the second multilayered shield extends over the first group of battery cells to contact the folded portion of the second multilayered shield.
However it has been held that the configuration or shape of a claimed device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, extending the folded portions of the first and the second to contact each other allow for there to be an increase in surface area of the barrier and allows the heat to transfer.
Claim(s) 4-6, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0299416 A1) in view of Tong et al. (US 2017/0294693 A1).
As to claim 4, Lee discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 3, but not the second outer layers in the folded portions of the first multilayered shield and the second multilayered shield directly contacts a thermal interface material that is sandwiched between the second outer layers and a portion of a battery pack enclosure.
Tong et al. discloses a heat dissipating plates between cells and a cover plate. Tong discloses the fins of the heat dissipation plater are bonded to the cover via a thermal conductive adhesive in or to improve the bonding between the cover and fins. [0059].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was affectively filed to include the thermal conductive adhesive to the folded portion to the cover in order to improve the bonding.
As to claim 5, Modified Lee discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 4, and further teaches wherein the first outer layers in the folded portions of the first multilayered shield and the second multilayered shield separate the open area from another open area established between the battery pack enclosure and the first outer layers (see figure below for explanation).
PNG
media_image5.png
159
421
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, Modified Lee discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 5, and wherein the portion of the battery pack enclosure is a second of a battery pack enclosure cover (see figure below).
PNG
media_image6.png
161
421
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to claim 12, Lee discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 1, but not the second outer layer in the folded portion directly contacts a thermal interface material that is sandwiched between the second outer layer and an area of a battery pack enclosure.
Tong et al. discloses a heat dissipating plates between cells and a cover plate. Tong discloses the fins of the heat dissipation plater are bonded to the cover via a thermal conductive adhesive in or to improve the bonding between the cover and fins. [0059].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was affectively filed to include the thermal conductive adhesive to the folded portion to the cover in order to improve the bonding.
As to claim 19, Lee discloses the method of claim 16, but not the sandwiching a thermal interface material between the folded portion and an area of a battery pack enclosure.
Tong et al. discloses a heat dissipating plates between cells and a cover plate. Tong discloses the fins of the heat dissipation plater are bonded to the cover via a thermal conductive adhesive in or to improve the bonding between the cover and fins. [0059].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was affectively filed to include the thermal conductive adhesive to the folded portion to the cover in order to improve the bonding.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0299416 A1) in view of Kihenny et al. (US 2021/0257690 A1).
As to claim 11, Lee discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 1, but not the first and second outer layers are a metal or metal alloy.
Kihenny et al. discloses a thermal management multilayer sheet for a battery to prevent thermal runaways comprising the outer layers (61 and 63) being a metal [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use metal as the outer layers in the system of Lee because metal is a known material to be used for multilayered barriers to prevent thermal runaways.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0299416 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2011/0097614 A1).
As to claim 7, Lee discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 2, but not a vent in the battery and therefore the folded portion of the first multilayered shield and the folded portion of the second multilayered shield span over at least one vent of the first battery cell group.
Kim discloses a battery and teaches the battery cell having a vent (515). The vent is used to be torn or ruptured by a set internal pressure [0049].
IT would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include a vent in the battery because this would safely release the gas from the battery cell.
By arranging the vent at the top of the battery cell, the folded portion of the first multilayered shield and the folded portion of the second multilayered shield span over at least one vent of the first battery cell group
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Salim (WO 2023/108279 A1) discloses a heat conductive plate having a bend.
Earl et al. (US 5354630) discloses a heat conductive plate with a bend.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727