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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Application No. 18/317,602 to Wurden, et al. assigned to Pure Watercraft, Inc. Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., filed 05/15/2023, and published as U.S. PG Publication 20230387498. This application is divisional of U.S. Application 16/546,212, now U.S. Patent 11688899.
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims as last amended and filed on 08/17/2023 stand as follows:
3.1 Currently amended 1-2,
Original 3-7
Canceled 8-21
3.4 New 22-34
Claims 1-7, 22-34 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/17/2023 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered by the examiner. A duly initialed and signed copy is attached herewith. Accordingly, information disclosure statement is being considered if signed and initialed by Examiner.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The drawing does not show the radiator clearly labeled with a reference number like the other component of the battery pack. The drawing show components of the radiator such as the radiator heat sink 74, and radiator tank 75, but even these elements are not so clear. Further the drawing of the radiator assembly in Fig. 15 does not clearly show different claimed components such as the vent, the valve and the tortuous path. Therefore, the radiator clearly labeled with the reference numbers of its claimed features must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings also do not show the insulative and /or protective coating covering the battery cell. Therefore, the insulative and/or protective coating clearly labeled with a reference number must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 22-24 objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 22 recites the battery pack further comprising an insulative and /or protective coating covering less than 98% of a length of each battery call (cell) and more than 10 % length of each battery cell. The batter “call” is a typographical error that is required to be corrected to “battery cell”.
Claim 22 recites the battery pack further comprising an insulative and /or protective coating covering less than 98% of a length of each battery (call) cell and more than 10 % length of each battery cell. It seems the insulative and/or protective coating is a feature of the individual battery cell and not of the battery pack formed by dipping them in a coating material. The instant specification was reviewed for guidance but does not provide any added explanation or disclosure regarding the insulative and /or protective coating. It would perhaps be correct to recite the claim as claim 25 is recited. For example, to recites, “The battery pack of claim 1, wherein individual battery cells of the plurality of battery cells include an insulative and/or protective coating …” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-7, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2015/0380780) in view of Miler et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2019/0157636)
Regarding Claim 1 and 29 Park disclose a battery system including a plurality of unit batteries and a method of manufacture (Park paragraph 0016, 0030) and providing a housing A hermetically surrounding the unit batteries (Park Fig. 2, paragraph 0023, 0048), the battery system is equivalent to the battery pack, and the plurality of unit batteries are equivalent to the plurality of battery cells, and the housing is equivalent to the lower enclosure and the plurality of the battery cells positions within the cavity.
Park discloses a heat radiator 500 is positioned on the upper wall of the housing A (Park Fig. 2, paragraph 0016) equivalent to the lower enclosure. A pipe 400 goes through the upper part of the housing A (Park Fig. 2), the passage hole of the heat pipe 400 in the upper wall of the housing A is considered equivalent to the vent in the upper cavity. Park discloses the heat pipe is thermally coupled to the heat radiator (Pak paragraph 0016). It would be obvious to connect the heat pipe 400 and the heat radiator through a valves at the vent hole. Park discloses the heat pipe conduct heat by using the phase transition of working fluid contained therein (Park paragraph 0027), considered equivalent to facilitate fluid communication between housing or cavity and the radiator assembly via the vent. Park discloses this configuration reduces thermal deterioration of the batteries (Park paragraph 0040), considered equivalent to a thermal runway event in the batteries. Park discloses the heat radiator being formed in a fin-shape or a mass, cools or heats the closed battery system from outside by circulation of air by a blower. But Park is silent about a valve between the battery pack and the radiator opening in response to increase pressure in the housing resulting from a thermal runaway event. Park is also silent about the radiator has a tortuous path and collect flammable particles from a thermal runaway event.
Miler discloses a battery pack that includes a plurality of blocks of battery cell and includes a plenum structure configured to fluidly couple the cell blocks to an exterior of the battery pack in response to a thermal event in the battery (Miler paragraph 0004) and positioned to one side of the battery pack (Miler Fig. 1C, paragraph 0049), the plenum structure is considered equivalent to the radiator. Miler discloses that when one or more battery cells within the cell block may experience a thermal runaway event, a corresponding cell block vent of the unstable cell block may open, allowing matter to discharge into a plenum chamber below the battery module, and the discharged matter may then follow one or more tortuous pathways that traverse multiple plenum chambers (Miler paragraph 0079). The cell block may discharge matter into the plenum chamber, equivalent to the radiator, which sits at lower pressure than the block of battery cells (Miler paragraph 0050, 0070).
Miler teaches that a tortuous pathway, by virtue of its at least one change in direction, is capable of separating solid matter from gaseous matter, and by forcing matter through changes in direction, the solid matter can be retained within the tortuous pathway mitigating a risk of ignition outside the battery pack (Miler paragraph 0081). This is equivalent to the tortuous path collecting flammable particulates from the thermal runaway event. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery pack of Park comprising the radiator by the teaching and disclosure of Miler and to have made the radiator of Park to have a tortuous path and collect flammable particulates to mitigate a risk of ignition outside the battery pack as taught by Miler (Miler paragraph 0080-0081). According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Regarding claim 2 Park discloses the heat radiator 500, being formed in a fin-shape or a mass, cools or heats the closed battery system from outside by being connected to a heat exchanger or by circulation of air by a blower (Park Fig. 2, paragraph 0040), such elements as the fin shape, and heat exchangers are considered equivalent to the heat sink since the elements act as heat transfer elements. Miler also discloses the plenum chamber, considered equivalent to the radiator have lateral member with internal conduit allowing fluid communication between plenum chambers (Miler paragraph 0070), and additionally operate as heat sink during cell events (Miler paragraph 0076). Therefore, the radiator of Park modified by Miler as presented above have heat sink to collect flammable particulates during cell event to mitigate a risk of ignition outside the battery pack as taught by Miler (Miler paragraph 0076, 0080, 0081) such as a thermal runaway event.
Regarding claim 3 and 4 Park discloses the heat radiator of the battery pack (Park Fig. 2, paragraph 0016) that include heat sink in the form of fin and heat exchangers (Park paragraph 0040), but is silent about the heat sink occupies more than 50 % of the foot print of the upper wall of the battery pack as recited in claim 3 or more than 66% as recited in claim 4. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized through routine experimentation the area of the upper wall of the battery pack occupied by the heat sink in order to achieve optimum heat removal from the battery pack and transfer the heat to the outside of the battery pack. According to the MPEP “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Regarding claim 5 Park discloses the battery pack comprising of an airduct surrounding the heat radiator (Park paragraph 0023), and is positioned above the housing of the battery pack (Park Fig. 2), considered equivalent to air moving device positioned above the cavity.
Regarding claim 6 the airduct has an upper wall (Park Fig. 2, 4) equivalent to the top cover.
Regarding claim 7 the upper wall of the housing has at least three vents to facilitate fluid communication between the housing and the heat radiator (Park Fig. 1).
Claim 22-24, 30-31, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2015/0380780) in view of Miler et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2019/0157636) as applied to claim 1 and 29, and further in view of Smith et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2015/0194643)
The discussion of Parks and Miler as applied to claim 1 and 29 is fully incorporated here, and is relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding Claim 22, 23, 24, 30 Park and Miler disclose the battery pack and method of manufacturing comprising a housing defining a cavity, equivalent to the enclosure, a plurality of battery cells positioned within the cavity, a radiator assembly, vents on the upper wall of the housing, valve communicating the housing and the radiator, and the radiator having a tortuous path to collect flammable particles as presented above (Park Fig. 2, paragraph 0016, 0023, 0027, 0030, 0048; Miler Fig. 1C, 0004, 0049, 0070, 0079). But Park and Miler are silent about an insulative and /or protective coating covering less than 98%of each of the battery cell and more than 10% of the length of each cell as recited in claim 22 and 30, or less than 35% and more than 10% as claimed in claim 23, or less than 75% and more than 25% as recited in claim 24.
Smith discloses an assembly of battery cells (Smith paragraph 0024), wherein at least a portion of the exterior of the battery cell is coated with a fire-resistant coating (Smith paragraph 0030, 0048, 0060), the fire resistant coating considered equivalent to the insulative and /or protective coating. But Smith is silent about the exact amount of the coverage of the length of exterior of the battery with the protective layer being in the claimed range of less than 98 % and more than 10% (claim 22), or less than 35% and more than 10% (claim 23) or less than 75% or more than 25% (claim 24). But Smith discloses coating at least a portion of the exterior of the battery cells with a fire-resistant coating (Smith paragraph 0038, 0048), and a portion of exterior includes coverage which is less than full coverage (i.e. any value less than 100 % coverage). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have varied the amount of coverage to coat at least a portion of the exterior of the battery cell with a fire-resistant coating (Smith paragraph 0038) and determine through routine experimentation an optimum level of coverage of a portion of the exterior (See MPEP 2144.05 II B) since Smith requires coating a portion of the exterior of the battery cell (Smith paragraph 0038, 0048)) and not full coverage of the battery cell.
Regarding claim 31 Smith discloses a method wherein an exterior of the battery cell is coated with a fire-resistant coating (Smith paragraph 0060) and the fire-resistant coating is applied by dip coating (Smith paragraph 0064).
Claim 25-28, 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2015/0380780) in view of Miler et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2019/0157636) as applied to claim 1 and 29, and further in view of Sato et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0198105)
The discussion of Park and Miler as applied to claim 1 and 29 is fully incorporated here and relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 25, 32 Park discloses the unit battery and a method of providing the unit battery may be a battery cell and the unit batteries are stacked and connected in series to form a high-voltage battery (Park paragraph 0037). Park is silent about the unit batteries have a cathode and anode and a collector strip connected to the anode and cathode, but it is known in the art that connection of batteries in series is accomplished by electrically connecting the unit batteries such that a cathode or positive tab or terminal on one cell is connected to the anode or negative tab or terminal of the next cell in a repeated fashion to a desired number of cell. Park is silent about a collector strip electrically connected to anode and cathode of at least subset of plurality of battery cells.
Sato discloses a battery pack including plurality of battery cells (Sato paragraph 0009), each battery cell comprising a positive electrode terminal and a negative electrode terminal (Sato Fig. 1, 2, paragraph 0027). The battery pack including the plurality of battery cells have a flat cable 40 that includes a plurality of conductors 41 and an insulating coating 42 that covers the conductor 41 (Sato Fir. 3, paragraph 0029) considered equivalent to the collector strip. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery pack of Park by the cable of Sato to electrically connect the plurality of cells and to have an improved durability of the connection and preventing conduction failure (Sato paragraph 0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery pack of Park by the collector strip of Sato for the benefit of a durable connection as taught by Sato (Sato paragraph 0043). According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Regarding claim 26 Sato discloses the individual battery cells include end, and where the cathode and anode are positioned on the end (Sato Fig. 2). So as evidenced by Sato the plurality of cell of Park will also have an end and each cathode and anode are positioned in the end.
Regarding claim 27 and 33 Sato disclose an insulating coating on the conductor and providing such a coating on the conductor (Sato paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 28 and 34 Sato discloses a flat cable and providing such a cable that includes a plurality of conductors and an insulating coating covers the conductors (Sato paragraph 0006).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722