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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9, 12, 15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “corresponding barrier strip” in line 3. The examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “corresponding thermal-barrier strip” to improve clarity and maintain consistency in terminology throughout the claims (i.e., Claim 1).
Claim 9 recites “the potting element paste” in line 1. The examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “the potting element non-self-leveling paste” to improve clarity and maintain consistency in terminology throughout the claims (i.e., Claim 8).
Claim 12 recites “corresponding barrier strip” in line 3. The examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “corresponding thermal-barrier strip” to improve clarity and maintain consistency in terminology throughout the claims (i.e., Claim 11).
Claim 15 recites “the potting element paste” in line 1. The examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “the potting element non-self-leveling paste” to improve clarity and maintain consistency in terminology throughout the claims (i.e., Claim 14).
Claim 20 recites “corresponding barrier strip” in line 10. The examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “corresponding thermal-barrier strip” to improve clarity and maintain consistency in terminology throughout the claims (i.e., Claim 17).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiadis (US 2024/0128583 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 03/12/2026) further in view of Janarthanam et al. (US 2022/0158146 A1).
In Regards to Claim 1:
Georgiadis discloses a multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) (battery cell arrangement, 1) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (2), wherein each battery cell (2) includes a respective cell vent (degassing valve) configured to expel gases; and a cell support assembly (separating elements, 4, and potting compound, 13) with thermal runaway mitigation (Figures 1 and 10A, [0079-0080, 0100]). Georgiadis further discloses that the cell support assembly (separating elements, 4, and potting compound, 13) includes: a cell holder (separating elements, 4) configured to support the plurality of battery cells (2) and having a holder body defining a plurality of apertures (vent channels, 5) arranged in rows, wherein each aperture (vent channels, 5) is configured to align and be in fluid communication with the cell vent (degassing valve) of one of the plurality of battery cells (2) (Figures 1 and 10B, [0080-0081]). Georgiadis further discloses that the cell support assembly (separating elements, 4, and potting compound, 13) includes a plurality of potting elements (potting compound, 13), wherein each potting element (potting compound, 13) is arranged in one of the plurality of apertures (vent channels, 5) (Figure 10A, [0100, 0101]). Georgiadis further discloses that each potting elements (potting compound, 13) is filled in the gaps (4b) formed between the cell holder (separating elements, 4) and the battery cells (2), thus the potting elements (potting compound, 13) are configured to adhere to the battery cell (2) and the cell holder (separating elements, 4) (Figure 10b, [0101]). Georgiadis further discloses a RESS enclosure (housing, 3, and cover elements, 6) having a tray (cover elements, 6) and a mating cover (housing, 3) and configured to house the plurality of battery cells (2), the cell holder (separating elements, 4), and the plurality of potting elements (potting compound, 13) (Figure 10A, [0080, 0083]).
Georgiadis is deficient in disclosing 1) a plurality of thermal-barrier strips adhered to the cell holder, wherein each thermal-barrier strip extends parallel to a respective row of apertures and is configured to thermally insulate corresponding battery cells from gases expelled by neighboring battery cells during a thermal runaway; and 2) that each potting element is arranged in one of the plurality of apertures such that it is between a respective battery cell and a corresponding thermal-barrier strip and configured to adhere to the battery cell and to the corresponding thermal-barrier strip to maintain position of the battery cell on the cell holder.
Janarthanam discloses a multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) (traction battery pack, 24) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (56), wherein each battery cell (56) includes a respective cell vent (vent ports, 64) configured to expel gases (Figure 3, [0045]). Janarthanam further discloses a cell support assembly (venting system, 68) with thermal runaway mitigation, including a plurality of apertures (vent exhaust channel, 70) each configured to align and be in fluid communication with the cell vent (vent ports, 64) of one of the plurality of battery cells (56) (Figure 3, [0046, 0051]). Janarthanam further discloses that a plurality of thermal-barrier strips (thermal protective coating, 82) may be adhered (coated) to the plurality of apertures (vent exhaust channel, 70) and the interior of the housing (cover, 62, and tray, 60) of the multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (traction battery pack, 24), the thermal-barrier strips (thermal protective coating, 82) serving to prevent damage to the plurality of apertures (vent exhaust channel, 70) and reduce heat dissipation to surrounding components of the multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (traction battery pack, 24) (Figure 3, [0052]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the RESS of Georgiadis to include the thermal protective coating of Janarthanam on the interior surfaces of the plurality of apertures and the RESS enclosure, as it is known in the art that coating such interior surfaces of a RESS serves to prevent thermal damage and reduce heat dissipation to surrounding components of the RESS, as taught by Janarthanam. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in improving the overall safety of the RESS as well as prevent thermal damage to the RESS, as taught by Janarthanam.
Upon the above modification, the skilled artisan would appreciate that a plurality of thermal-barrier strips (each surface which is coated with the thermal protective coating may be considered a “strip”) are adhered (coated) to the cell holder, wherein each thermal-barrier strip extends parallel to a respective row of apertures (as the interior surface of the apertures on which the thermal protective coating is coated is arranged as such) and is configured to thermally insulate corresponding battery cells from gases expelled by neighboring battery cells during a thermal runaway, as taught by Janarthanam. Likewise, the skilled artisan would appreciate that upon the above modification, that each potting element is arranged in one of the plurality of apertures such that it is between a respective battery cell and a corresponding thermal-barrier strip and configured to adhere to the battery cell and to the corresponding thermal-barrier strip to maintain position of the battery cell on the cell holder. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
In Regards to Claim 2 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam discloses the multi-cell RESS of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, modified Georgiadis discloses an RESS enclosure (housing, 3, and cover elements, 6) having a tray (cover elements, 6) and a mating cover (housing, 3) and configured to house the plurality of battery cells (2), the cell holder (separating elements, 4), the plurality of thermal-barrier strips, and the plurality of potting elements (potting compound, 13) (Figure 10A, [0080, 0083]). Georgiadis further discloses that the cell holder (separating elements, 4) is configured to engage and fit together with the enclosure tray (cover elements, 6) (Figure 10A, [0083]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
In Regards to Claim 3 (Dependent Upon Claim 2):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam discloses the multi-cell RESS of Claim 2 as set forth above. Georgiadis further discloses that the enclosure tray (cover elements, 6) includes multiple channels (groove portion, 6b, of cover elements, 6, which defines vent channels, 5, alongside separating elements, 4) and the cell holder (separating elements, 4) includes multiple integral projection portions (portion of separating elements, 4, in contact with groove portion, 6b) (Figure 9A, [0088, 0097]). Georgiadis further discloses that each of the cell holder projection portions (portion of separating elements, 4, in contact with groove portion, 6b) is configured to engage one of the enclosure tray channels (groove portion, 6b, of cover elements, 6, which defines vent channels, 5, alongside separating elements, 4), thereby establishing a plurality of longitudinal fluid passages (region of vent channels, 5, corresponding to cover elements, 6) (Figures 9A and 10A, [0095, 0097]). Georgiadis further discloses that each fluid passage (region of vent channels, 5, corresponding to cover elements, 6) extends along at least one of the rows of apertures (vent channels, 5) to direct the gases expelled by corresponding battery cells (2) (Figure 10A, [0079, 0083]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
In Regards to Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 3):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam discloses the multi-cell RESS of Claim 3 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, modified Georgiadis discloses that the thermal-barrier strips are present on an entirety of the interior surfaces of the plurality of apertures (vent channels, 5) and the RESS enclosure (housing, 3, and cover elements, 6), including the tray (cover elements, 6).
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that when the thermal-barrier strips are present on the interior surfaces of the tray (cover elements, 6), each of the thermal-barrier strips may be considered to include a strip section extending into a respective enclosure tray channel (groove portion, 6b, of cover elements, 6, which defines vent channels, 5, alongside separating elements, 4) between the enclosure tray (cover elements, 6) and the corresponding holder projection portion (portion of separating elements, 4, in contact with groove portion, 6b) (Figure 10A, [0095, 0097]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
In Regards to Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 3):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam discloses the multi-cell RESS of Claim 3 as set forth above. Georgiadis further discloses an adhesive arranged inside the enclosure tray channel (groove portion, 6b, of cover elements, 6, which defines vent channels, 5, alongside separating elements, 4) between the enclosure tray (cover elements, 6) and the corresponding holder projection portion (portion of separating elements, 4, in contact with groove portion, 6b) to thereby fix the cell holder (separating elements, 4) of the cell support assembly (separating elements, 4, and potting compound, 13) which forms the plurality of apertures (vent channels, 5) to the enclosure tray (cover elements, 6) (Figure 10A, [0083]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
In Regards to Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 3):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam discloses the multi-cell RESS of Claim 3 as set forth above.
Georgiadis does not explicitly teach that each of the potting elements (potting compound, 13) is configured to separate from the respective aperture (vent channels, 5) under a force of the expelled gases and thereby break away a portion of the corresponding barrier strip into the corresponding fluid passage (region of vent channels, 5, corresponding to cover elements, 6).
However, the examiner notes that the term “a force” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of prior art. As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there is necessarily a force the expelled gases may achieve which would result in the separation of the potting elements (potting compound, 13) from the respective aperture (vent channels, 5) and the “breaking away” of the corresponding barrier strip into the corresponding fluid passage (region of vent channels, 5, corresponding to cover elements, 6). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
In Regards to Claim 11:
Georgiadis discloses a cell support assembly (separating elements, 4, and potting compound, 13) with thermal runaway mitigation for a multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) (battery cell arrangement, 1) having a plurality of battery cells (2) with respective cell vents (degassing valve) for expelling gases (Figures 1 and 10A, [0079-0080, 0100]). Georgiadis further discloses that the cell support assembly (separating elements, 4, and potting compound, 13) comprises: a cell holder (separating elements, 4) configured to support the plurality of battery cells (2) and having a holder body defining a plurality of apertures (vent channels, 5) arranged in rows, wherein each aperture (vent channels, 5) is configured to align and be in fluid communication with the cell vent (degassing valve) of one of the plurality of battery cells (2) (Figures 1 and 10B, [0080-0081]). Georgiadis further discloses that the cell support assembly (separating elements, 4, and potting compound, 13) includes a plurality of potting elements (potting compound, 13), wherein each potting element (potting compound, 13) is arranged in one of the plurality of apertures (vent channels, 5) (Figure 10A, [0100, 0101]). Georgiadis further discloses that each potting elements (potting compound, 13) is filled in the gaps (4b) formed between the cell holder (separating elements, 4) and the battery cells (2), thus the potting elements (potting compound, 13) are configured to adhere to the battery cell (2) and the cell holder (separating elements, 4) (Figure 10b, [0101]). Georgiadis further discloses a RESS enclosure (housing, 3, and cover elements, 6) having a tray (cover elements, 6) and a mating cover (housing, 3) and configured to house the plurality of battery cells (2), the cell holder (separating elements, 4), and the plurality of potting elements (potting compound, 13) (Figure 10A, [0080, 0083]).
Georgiadis is deficient in disclosing 1) a plurality of thermal-barrier strips adhered to the cell holder, wherein each thermal-barrier strip extends parallel to a respective row of apertures and is configured to thermally insulate corresponding battery cells from gases expelled by neighboring battery cells during a thermal runaway; and 2) that each potting element is arranged in one of the plurality of apertures such that it is between a respective battery cell and a corresponding thermal-barrier strip and configured to adhere to the battery cell and to the corresponding thermal-barrier strip to maintain position of the battery cell on the cell holder.
Janarthanam discloses a multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) (traction battery pack, 24) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (56), wherein each battery cell (56) includes a respective cell vent (vent ports, 64) configured to expel gases (Figure 3, [0045]). Janarthanam further discloses a cell support assembly (venting system, 68) with thermal runaway mitigation, including a plurality of apertures (vent exhaust channel, 70) each configured to align and be in fluid communication with the cell vent (vent ports, 64) of one of the plurality of battery cells (56) (Figure 3, [0046, 0051]). Janarthanam further discloses that a plurality of thermal-barrier strips (thermal protective coating, 82) may be adhered (coated) to the plurality of apertures (vent exhaust channel, 70) and the interior of the housing (cover, 62, and tray, 60) of the multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (traction battery pack, 24), the thermal-barrier strips (thermal protective coating, 82) serving to prevent damage to the plurality of apertures (vent exhaust channel, 70) and reduce heat dissipation to surrounding components of the multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (traction battery pack, 24) (Figure 3, [0052]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the RESS of Georgiadis to include the thermal protective coating of Janarthanam on the interior surfaces of the plurality of apertures and the RESS enclosure, as it is known in the art that coating such interior surfaces of a RESS serves to prevent thermal damage and reduce heat dissipation to surrounding components of the RESS, as taught by Janarthanam. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in improving the overall safety of the RESS as well as prevent thermal damage to the RESS, as taught by Janarthanam.
Upon the above modification, the skilled artisan would appreciate that a plurality of thermal-barrier strips (each surface which is coated with the thermal protective coating may be considered a “strip”) are adhered (coated) to the cell holder, wherein each thermal-barrier strip extends parallel to a respective row of apertures (as the interior surface of the apertures on which the thermal protective coating is coated is arranged as such) and is configured to thermally insulate corresponding battery cells from gases expelled by neighboring battery cells during a thermal runaway, as taught by Janarthanam. Likewise, the skilled artisan would appreciate that upon the above modification, that each potting element is arranged in one of the plurality of apertures such that it is between a respective battery cell and a corresponding thermal-barrier strip and configured to adhere to the battery cell and to the corresponding thermal-barrier strip to maintain position of the battery cell on the cell holder. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 11 are met.
In Regards to Claim 12 (Dependent Upon Claim 11):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam discloses the cell support assembly of Claim 11 as set forth above.
Georgiadis does not explicitly teach that each of the potting elements (potting compound, 13) is configured to separate from the respective aperture (vent channels, 5) under a force of the expelled gases and thereby break away a portion of the corresponding barrier strip.
However, the examiner notes that the term “a force” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of prior art. As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there is necessarily a force the expelled gases may achieve which would result in the separation of the potting elements (potting compound, 13) from the respective aperture (vent channels, 5) and the “breaking away” of the corresponding barrier strip. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 12 are met.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiadis (US 2024/0128583 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 03/12/2026) as modified by Janarthanam et al. (US 2022/0158146 A1), as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, with evidentiary support from Hamdani et al. (Polymer Degradation and Stability 94 (2009) 465–495).
In Regards to Claim 7 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam discloses the multi-cell RESS of Claim 1 as set forth above. Georgiadis further discloses that the potting elements (potting compound, 13) may be formed from silicone (Figure 10A, [0057]).
Georgiadis is deficient in disclosing that each of the potting elements includes a flame-retardant material.
Hamdani teaches that silicon materials have low heat release rates, minimal sensitivity to external heat flux, and exhibit a slow burning rate, therefore are known to offer significant advantages for flame retardant applications (p. 465, Introduction, Column 2).
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the silicone potting elements (potting compound, 13) of Georgiadis may be considered a flame-retardant material. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
In Regards to Claim 13 (Dependent Upon Claim 11):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam discloses the cell support assembly of Claim 11 as set forth above. Georgiadis further discloses that the potting elements (potting compound, 13) may be formed from silicone (Figure 10A, [0057]).
Georgiadis is deficient in disclosing that each of the potting elements includes a flame-retardant material.
Hamdani teaches that silicon materials have low heat release rates, minimal sensitivity to external heat flux, and exhibit a slow burning rate, therefore are known to offer significant advantages for flame retardant applications (p. 465, Introduction, Column 2).
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the silicone potting elements (potting compound, 13) of Georgiadis may be considered a flame-retardant material. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 13 are met.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiadis (US 2024/0128583 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 03/12/2026) as modified by Janarthanam et al. (US 2022/0158146 A1), as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2020/0076022 A1).
In Regards to Claim 8 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam discloses the multi-cell RESS of Claim 1 as set forth above. Georgiadis further discloses that the potting elements (potting compound, 13) may be formed from silicone or a non-conductive thermally isolating potting compound (Figure 10A, [0057]). Georgiadis further teaches that covering the cell vents (degassing valve) of the plurality of battery cells (2), which are located around the positive poles of the battery cells (2), with the potting elements (potting compound, 13) serves to thermally and/or mechanically shield the battery cells (2) from neighboring battery cells (2) (Figure 10A, [0057]).
Georgiadis is deficient in disclosing that each of the potting elements is formed from a non-self-leveling paste applied into the respective one of the plurality of apertures and cured to harden therein.
Kawakami discloses a multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) (battery pack) comprising a plurality of battery cells (1) and a heat insulating member (8) accommodated in a housing (external case, 11) (Figure 1, [0042-0043]). Kawakami further discloses that the heat insulating member (8) is disposed on the surface of bus bars (3) connected with electrode poles (electrode terminals, 1x/1y) and serves to insulate neighboring components of the RESS (battery pack) from heat generated from the plurality of battery cells (1) (Figure 1, [0065]). Kawakami further discloses that the heat insulating member (8) is formed from a potting resin, wherein the potting resin may be urethane resin which is applied to positioning hollows (2D) and cured (Figure 1, [0066-0067, 0069]). Kawakami further discloses that the uncured potting resin may be in paste form, and that the potting resin is continuously supplied cured over time to form the heat insulating member (8) (Figure 1, [0066, 0074]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the potting element of Georgiadis, the urethane potting resin taught by Kawakami, as such a resin is known in the art as suitable for a potting resin being in contact with an electrode pole of a battery cell in a RESS, as taught by Kawakami. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a potting element which successfully insulates neighboring components of the RESS (battery pack) from heat generated from the plurality of battery cells, as taught by Kawakami and as is desired by Georgiadis as noted above. Upon such a modification, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met.
In Regards to Claim 14 (Dependent Upon Claim 11):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam discloses the cell support assembly of Claim 11 as set forth above. Georgiadis further discloses that the potting elements (potting compound, 13) may be formed from silicone or a non-conductive thermally isolating potting compound (Figure 10A, [0057]). Georgiadis further teaches that covering the cell vents (degassing valve) of the plurality of battery cells (2), which are located around the positive poles of the battery cells (2), with the potting elements (potting compound, 13) serves to thermally and/or mechanically shield the battery cells (2) from neighboring battery cells (2) (Figure 10A, [0057]).
Georgiadis is deficient in disclosing that each of the potting elements is formed from a non-self-leveling paste applied into the respective one of the plurality of apertures and cured to harden therein.
Kawakami discloses a multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) (battery pack) comprising a plurality of battery cells (1) and a heat insulating member (8) accommodated in a housing (external case, 11) (Figure 1, [0042-0043]). Kawakami further discloses that the heat insulating member (8) is disposed on the surface of bus bars (3) connected with electrode poles (electrode terminals, 1x/1y) and serves to insulate neighboring components of the RESS (battery pack) from heat generated from the plurality of battery cells (1) (Figure 1, [0065]). Kawakami further discloses that the heat insulating member (8) is formed from a potting resin, wherein the potting resin may be urethane resin which is applied to positioning hollows (2D) and cured (Figure 1, [0066-0067, 0069]). Kawakami further discloses that the uncured potting resin may be in paste form, and that the potting resin is continuously supplied cured over time to form the heat insulating member (8) (Figure 1, [0066, 0074]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the potting element of Georgiadis, the urethane potting resin taught by Kawakami, as such a resin is known in the art as suitable for a potting resin being in contact with an electrode pole of a battery cell in a RESS, as taught by Kawakami. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a potting element which successfully insulates neighboring components of the RESS (battery pack) from heat generated from the plurality of battery cells, as taught by Kawakami and as is desired by Georgiadis as noted above. Upon such a modification, all of the limitations of Claim 14 are met.
Claims 9-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiadis (US 2024/0128583 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 03/12/2026) as modified by Janarthanam et al. (US 2022/0158146 A1) and Kawakami et al. (US 2020/0076022 A1), as applied to Claims 8 and 14 above, further in view of Capati et al. (US 2019/0081294 A1) and Savaria et al. (US 2004/0137321 A1).
In Regards to Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 8):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam and Kawakami discloses the multi-cell RESS of Claim 8 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 8, modified Georgiadis discloses that the potting elements (potting compound, 13) may be formed from a urethane resin.
Georgiadis is 1) silent to the material of the cell holder, and 2) deficient in disclosing that the potting element paste includes additives configured to match a thermal expansion coefficient of the potting elements with a coefficient of thermal expansion of the cell holder.
Regarding 1), Capati discloses a multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) (battery module, 100) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (110) and a cell holder (first cell holder, 130) configured to support the plurality of battery cells (110) (Figures 1 and 2, [0020, 0025]). Capati further discloses that the cell holder (first cell holder, 130) may be formed from a nylon material with glass filler (Figure 2, [0063]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the material of the cell holder of Georgiadis, a glass-filled nylon material, as it is known in the art that such a material is suitable for forming a cell holder for a RESS, as taught by Capati. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding 2), Savaria discloses a composite thermoset material for use in an energy storage device, wherein the composite thermoset material may be urethane which is reinforced with additives such as glass fillers [0031, 0054].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the urethane of the potting elements of modified Georgiadis to include glass fillers, as it is known in the art that a urethane material comprising glass fillers is a suitable selection as a composite thermoset material for use in an energy storage device, as taught by Savaria. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
The examiner notes that the term “a thermal expansion coefficient” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of prior art. As such the skilled artisan would appreciate that upon the above modifications, the additive (glass filler) of the potting element paste and the cell holder (comprising glass filler) would be expected to have a matching thermal expansion coefficient (i.e., the thermal expansion coefficient of the glass filler in both the potting element paste and the cell holder would be expected to match). Thus, upon all of the above modifications all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met.
In Regards to Claim 10 (Dependent Upon Claim 9):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam, Kawakami, Capati, and Savaria discloses the multi-cell RESS of Claim 9 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 9, modified Georgiadis discloses that the cell holder (separating elements, 4) is constructed from a glass-filled nylon material. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 10 are met.
In Regards to Claim 15 (Dependent Upon Claim 14):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam and Kawakami discloses the cell support assembly of Claim 14 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 14, modified Georgiadis discloses that the potting elements (potting compound, 13) may be formed from a urethane resin.
Georgiadis is 1) silent to the material of the cell holder, and 2) deficient in disclosing that the potting element paste includes additives configured to match a thermal expansion coefficient of the potting elements with a coefficient of thermal expansion of the cell holder.
Regarding 1), Capati discloses a multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) (battery module, 100) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (110) and a cell holder (first cell holder, 130) configured to support the plurality of battery cells (110) (Figures 1 and 2, [0020, 0025]). Capati further discloses that the cell holder (first cell holder, 130) may be formed from a nylon material with glass filler (Figure 2, [0063]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the material of the cell holder of Georgiadis, a glass-filled nylon material, as it is known in the art that such a material is suitable for forming a cell holder for a RESS, as taught by Capati. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding 2), Savaria discloses a composite thermoset material for use in an energy storage device, wherein the composite thermoset material may be urethane which is reinforced with additives such as glass fillers [0031, 0054].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the urethane of the potting elements of modified Georgiadis to include glass fillers, as it is known in the art that a urethane material comprising glass fillers is a suitable selection as a composite thermoset material for use in an energy storage device, as taught by Savaria. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
The examiner notes that the term “a thermal expansion coefficient” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of prior art. As such the skilled artisan would appreciate that upon the above modifications, the additive (glass filler) of the potting element paste and the cell holder (comprising glass filler) would be expected to have a matching thermal expansion coefficient (i.e., the thermal expansion coefficient of the glass filler in both the potting element paste and the cell holder would be expected to match). Thus, upon all of the above modifications all of the limitations of Claim 15 are met.
In Regards to Claim 16 (Dependent Upon Claim 15):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam, Kawakami, Capati, and Savaria discloses the cell support assembly of Claim 15 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 15, modified Georgiadis discloses that the cell holder (separating elements, 4) is constructed from a glass-filled nylon material. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 16 are met.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiadis (US 2024/0128583 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 03/12/2026) further in view of Janarthanam et al. (US 2022/0158146 A1) and Capati et al. (US 2019/0081294 A1).
In Regards to Claim 17:
Georgiadis discloses a multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) (battery cell arrangement, 1) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (2), wherein each battery cell (2) includes a respective cell vent (degassing valve) configured to expel gases; and a cell support assembly (separating elements, 4, and potting compound, 13) with thermal runaway mitigation (Figures 1 and 10A, [0079-0080, 0100]). Georgiadis further discloses that the cell support assembly (separating elements, 4, and potting compound, 13) includes: a cell holder (separating elements, 4) configured to support the plurality of battery cells (2) and having a holder body defining a plurality of apertures (vent channels, 5) arranged in rows, wherein each aperture (vent channels, 5) is configured to align and be in fluid communication with the cell vent (degassing valve) of one of the plurality of battery cells (2) (Figures 1 and 10B, [0080-0081]). Georgiadis further discloses that the cell support assembly (separating elements, 4, and potting compound, 13) includes a plurality of potting elements (potting compound, 13), wherein each potting element (potting compound, 13) is arranged in one of the plurality of apertures (vent channels, 5) (Figure 10A, [0100, 0101]). Georgiadis further discloses that each potting elements (potting compound, 13) is filled in the gaps (4b) formed between the cell holder (separating elements, 4) and the battery cells (2), thus the potting elements (potting compound, 13) are configured to adhere to the battery cell (2) and the cell holder (separating elements, 4) (Figure 10b, [0101]). Georgiadis further discloses a RESS enclosure (housing, 3, and cover elements, 6) having a tray (cover elements, 6) and a mating cover (housing, 3) and configured to house the plurality of battery cells (2), the cell holder (separating elements, 4), and the plurality of potting elements (potting compound, 13) (Figure 10A, [0080, 0083]). Georgiadis further discloses that the RESS (battery cell arrangement, 1) may be used to power a motor vehicle [0005-0006].
Georgiadis is deficient in disclosing 1) a plurality of thermal-barrier strips adhered to the cell holder, wherein each thermal-barrier strip extends parallel to a respective row of apertures and is configured to thermally insulate corresponding battery cells from gases expelled by neighboring battery cells during a thermal runaway; 2) that each potting element is arranged in one of the plurality of apertures such that it is between a respective battery cell and a corresponding thermal-barrier strip and configured to adhere to the battery cell and to the corresponding thermal-barrier strip to maintain position of the battery cell on the cell holder; and 3) a motor vehicle comprising: a power-source configured to generate power-source torque, wherein the RESS is configured to supply electrical energy to the power-source.
Regarding 1) and 2), Janarthanam discloses a multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) (traction battery pack, 24) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (56), wherein each battery cell (56) includes a respective cell vent (vent ports, 64) configured to expel gases (Figure 3, [0045]). Janarthanam further discloses a cell support assembly (venting system, 68) with thermal runaway mitigation, including a plurality of apertures (vent exhaust channel, 70) each configured to align and be in fluid communication with the cell vent (vent ports, 64) of one of the plurality of battery cells (56) (Figure 3, [0046, 0051]). Janarthanam further discloses that a plurality of thermal-barrier strips (thermal protective coating, 82) may be adhered (coated) to the plurality of apertures (vent exhaust channel, 70) and the interior of the housing (cover, 62, and tray, 60) of the multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (traction battery pack, 24), the thermal-barrier strips (thermal protective coating, 82) serving to prevent damage to the plurality of apertures (vent exhaust channel, 70) and reduce heat dissipation to surrounding components of the multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (traction battery pack, 24) (Figure 3, [0052]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the RESS of Georgiadis to include the thermal protective coating of Janarthanam on the interior surfaces of the plurality of apertures and the RESS enclosure, as it is known in the art that coating such interior surfaces of a RESS serves to prevent thermal damage and reduce heat dissipation to surrounding components of the RESS, as taught by Janarthanam. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in improving the overall safety of the RESS as well as prevent thermal damage to the RESS, as taught by Janarthanam.
Upon the above modification, the skilled artisan would appreciate that a plurality of thermal-barrier strips (each surface which is coated with the thermal protective coating may be considered a “strip”) are adhered (coated) to the cell holder, wherein each thermal-barrier strip extends parallel to a respective row of apertures (as the interior surface of the apertures on which the thermal protective coating is coated is arranged as such) and is configured to thermally insulate corresponding battery cells from gases expelled by neighboring battery cells during a thermal runaway, as taught by Janarthanam. Likewise, the skilled artisan would appreciate that upon the above modification, that each potting element is arranged in one of the plurality of apertures such that it is between a respective battery cell and a corresponding thermal-barrier strip and configured to adhere to the battery cell and to the corresponding thermal-barrier strip to maintain position of the battery cell on the cell holder.
Regarding 3), Capati discloses a multi-cell rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) (battery module, 100) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (110) and a cell holder (first cell holder, 130) configured to support the plurality of battery cells (110) (Figures 1 and 2, [0020, 0025]). Capati further discloses that the RESS (battery module, 100) may be utilized within a motor vehicle to supply electrical energy to a high-torque motor (Figure 5, [0002, 0066]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to utilize the RESS of modified Georgiadis in a motor vehicle with a high-torque motor being powered by the RESS, as it is known in the art that such an RESS is suitable for application in a motor vehicle, as taught by Capati, and furthermore as Georgiadis teaches the RESS may be suitable for use in a vehicle. Upon the above modifications, all of the limitations of Claim 17 are met.
In Regards to Claim 18 (Dependent Upon Claim 17):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam and Capati discloses the motor vehicle of Claim 17 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 17, modified Georgiadis discloses an RESS enclosure (housing, 3, and cover elements, 6) having a tray (cover elements, 6) and a mating cover (housing, 3) and configured to house the plurality of battery cells (2), the cell holder (separating elements, 4), the plurality of thermal-barrier strips, and the plurality of potting elements (potting compound, 13) (Figure 10A, [0080, 0083]). Georgiadis further discloses that the cell holder (separating elements, 4) is configured to engage and fit together with the enclosure tray (cover elements, 6) (Figure 10A, [0083]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 18 are met.
In Regards to Claim 19 (Dependent Upon Claim 18):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam and Capati discloses the motor vehicle of Claim 18 as set forth above. Georgiadis further discloses that the enclosure tray (cover elements, 6) includes multiple channels (groove portion, 6b, of cover elements, 6, which defines vent channels, 5, alongside separating elements, 4) and the cell holder (separating elements, 4) includes multiple integral projection portions (portion of separating elements, 4, in contact with groove portion, 6b) (Figure 9A, [0088, 0097]). Georgiadis further discloses that each of the cell holder projection portions (portion of separating elements, 4, in contact with groove portion, 6b) is configured to engage one of the enclosure tray channels (groove portion, 6b, of cover elements, 6, which defines vent channels, 5, alongside separating elements, 4), thereby establishing a plurality of longitudinal fluid passages (region of vent channels, 5, corresponding to cover elements, 6) (Figures 9A and 10A, [0095, 0097]). Georgiadis further discloses that each fluid passage (region of vent channels, 5, corresponding to cover elements, 6) extends along at least one of the rows of apertures (vent channels, 5) to direct the gases expelled by corresponding battery cells (2) (Figure 10A, [0079, 0083]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 19 are met.
In Regards to Claim 20 (Dependent Upon Claim 19):
Georgiadis as modified by Janarthanam and Capati discloses the motor vehicle of Claim 19 as set forth above. Georgiadis further discloses an adhesive arranged inside the enclosure tray channel (groove portion, 6b, of cover elements, 6, which defines vent channels, 5, alongside separating elements, 4) between the enclosure tray (cover elements, 6) and the corresponding holder projection portion (portion of separating elements, 4, in contact with groove portion, 6b) to thereby fix the cell holder (separating elements, 4) of the cell support assembly (separating elements, 4, and potting compound, 13) which forms the plurality of apertures (vent channels, 5) to the enclosure tray (cover elements, 6) (Figure 10A, [0083]).
Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 17, modified Georgiadis discloses that the thermal-barrier strips are present on an entirety of the interior surfaces of the plurality of apertures (vent channels, 5) and the RESS enclosure (housing, 3, and cover elements, 6), including the tray (cover elements, 6). As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that when the thermal-barrier strips are present on the interior surfaces of the tray (cover elements, 6), each of the thermal-barrier strips may be considered to include a strip section extending into a respective enclosure tray channel (groove portion, 6b, of cover elements, 6, which defines vent channels, 5, alongside separating elements, 4) between the enclosure tray (cover elements, 6) and the corresponding holder projection portion (portion of separating elements, 4, in contact with groove portion, 6b) (Figure 10A, [0095, 0097]).
Georgiadis does not explicitly teach that each of the potting elements (potting compound, 13) is configured to separate from the respective aperture (vent channels, 5) under a force of the expelled gases and thereby break away a portion of the corresponding barrier strip into the corresponding fluid passage (region of vent channels, 5, corresponding to cover elements, 6).
However, the examiner notes that the term “a force” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of prior art. As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there is necessarily a force the expelled gases may achieve which would result in the separation of the potting elements (potting compound, 13) from the respective aperture (vent channels, 5) and the “breaking away” of the corresponding barrier strip into the corresponding fluid passage (region of vent channels, 5, corresponding to cover elements, 6). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 20 are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights