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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because of a lack of antecedent basis. Claim 2 recites “the pack mounted portion of the manifold,” but Claim 1 recites “a portion of the manifold mounted on the housing.” For antecedent basis purposes, Claim 2 should recite “the portion of the manifold mounted on the housing includes,” to provide basis for this element. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 - 2, 5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Hammerle, et. al. (US2022367966A1).
Hammerle teaches a battery pack (battery cell 100) for a vehicle (“[0001] The invention also relates to a battery assembly and a motor vehicle”), comprising: a housing (Cell housing 14) including at least one pack vent between an interior and an exterior of the housing (releasable wall opening 38); a plurality of battery cells (“several battery cells 10”) disposed within the housing; and a vent system includes a closed channel network (degassing channel 28) under the cells in connection with a vent (cell degassing opening 26) of the plurality of battery cells and the at least one pack vent; and a manifold mounted on the closed channel network, a portion of the manifold mounted on the housing including a connector installed from external to the housing that connects the manifold to the closed channel network (wherein the manifold is formed by the channel wall 30, mounted upon the cell housing 14, and wherein the connector is the ; see Fig. 5, wherein the arrow depicts air flow out of the battery pack).
PNG
media_image1.png
557
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Hammerle
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 1 is anticipated by Hammerle.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Hammerle. Hammerle recites, “[0021] In a further advantageous embodiment of the invention, a partition, in particular an O-ring, surrounding the wall opening and the assigned cell-degassing opening is arranged between the releasable wall opening and the assigned cell-degassing opening, which partition separates a free inner region between the cell-degassing opening and the wall opening from an outer region between the cell pack and the degassing channel, which is at least partially filled with a thermally conductive compound . . . Such an O-ring can be provided, for example, in the form of a foam strip, rubber ring, or a similar element that prevents such a thermally conductive compound, also known as a gap filler, from penetrating into this free area that is to be kept free.” Hammerle at [0021]. This is “the pack mounted portion of the manifold includes a sealing material (foam O-ring 56) engaging the connector [the breakable portions which span the releasable degassing opening 26].”
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 2 is anticipated by Hammerle.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Hammerle.
Hammerle teaches wherein the manifold connects channels coming from at least two modules to a single pack vent. Hammerle at [0040 – 44], Fig. 5.
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 4 is anticipated by Hammerle.
Claim 5 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Hammerle.
Hammerle recites, “[0021] In a further advantageous embodiment of the invention, a partition, in particular an O-ring, surrounding the wall opening and the assigned cell-degassing opening is arranged between the releasable wall opening and the assigned cell-degassing opening, which partition separates a free inner region between the cell-degassing opening and the wall opening from an outer region between the cell pack and the degassing channel, which is at least partially filled with a thermally conductive compound . . . Such an O-ring can be provided, for example, in the form of a foam strip, rubber ring, or a similar element that prevents such a thermally conductive compound, also known as a gap filler, from penetrating into this free area that is to be kept free.” Hammerle at [0021]. This gap filler is a potting material filling all cavities external to the vent system (i.e. the closed channel network and manifold opening).
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 5 is anticipated by Hammerle.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Hammerle.
Hammerle recites, “[0021] In a further advantageous embodiment of the invention, a partition, in particular an O-ring, surrounding the wall opening and the assigned cell-degassing opening is arranged between the releasable wall opening and the assigned cell-degassing opening, which partition separates a free inner region between the cell-degassing opening and the wall opening from an outer region between the cell pack and the degassing channel, which is at least partially filled with a thermally conductive compound . . . Such an O-ring can be provided, for example, in the form of a foam strip, rubber ring, or a similar element that prevents such a thermally conductive compound, also known as a gap filler, from penetrating into this free area that is to be kept free.” Hammerle at [0021]. This gap filler is a potting material filling all cavities external to the vent system (i.e. the closed channel network and manifold opening).
Hammerle recites the vent system is sufficiently sealed to prevent potting from entering the vent system during manufacture of the pack.
The Office notes that the “potting” term does not present an antecedent basis issue, because, “to prevent potting from entering the vent system,” is a statement of intended use.
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 7 is anticipated by Hammerle.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Hammerle.
A “cell channel array” includes an array (a series of arranged and adjacent objects) of channel openings, such as the cell degassing openings 26 (not shown) which pair with releasable wall openings 38 along the cells 10 and the degassing channel 28 shown in Hammerle. Hammerle at [0037], Fig. 2.
PNG
media_image2.png
772
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 – 2 of Hammerle.
Hammerle teaches the closed channel network includes a cell channel array.
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 8 is anticipated by Hammerle.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 8. Claim 8 is anticipated by Hammerle.
Hammerle recites the cell channel array includes at least two pieces per battery module. Because the two pieces of the cell channel array are not defined, this includes, for example, the two break points of the releasable wall openings 38 or the degassing openings 26, shown in Fig. 5. Hammerle at Fig. 5.
Claim 9 is anticipated by Hammerle.
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 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.
Claims 3 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammerle, as evidenced by Foam Rubber vs. Sponge Rubber: Know the Difference, Accurate Rubber Corporation (02/08/2021), https://www.accuraterubber.com/foam-vs-sponge-rubber-comparison/ (p.1-2).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is anticipated by Hammerle. Hammerle recites a foam strip, or rubber ring O-ring, but does not teach the foam itself is rubber; however, Hammerle teaches this may be “a similar element that prevents such a thermally conductive compound . . . from penetrating into this free area.” Further, foam rubbers are suitable for their shock absorbing characteristics, strength, and moisture resistance, making them suitable to, for example, prevent a thermally conductive compound from penetrating an O-ring. Foam Rubber vs. Sponge Rubber, p.1-2.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery pack of Hammerle, such it comprises a rubber foam, because Hammerle teaches both a foam O-ring and a rubber O-ring separately, and because as evidenced by Foam Rubber, foam rubbers provide shock absorbing characteristics.
Claim 3 is obvious over Hammerle, as evidenced by Foam Rubber.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 relies upon Claim 18. Claim 18 is obvious over Hammerle (see below analysis). Hammerle recites a foam strip, or rubber ring / O-ring, but does not teach the foam itself is rubber; however, Hammerle teaches this may be “a similar element that prevents such a thermally conductive compound . . . from penetrating into this free area.” Further, foam rubbers are suitable for their shock absorbing characteristics, strength, and moisture resistance, making them suitable to, for example, prevent a thermally conductive compound from penetrating an O-ring. Foam Rubber vs. Sponge Rubber, p.1-2.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery pack of Hammerle, such it comprises a rubber foam, because Hammerle teaches both a foam O-ring and a rubber O-ring separately, and because as evidenced by Foam Rubber, foam rubbers provide shock absorbing characteristics.
Claim 19 is obvious over Hammerle, as evidenced by Foam Rubber.
Claim 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammerle, in view of Choi, et. al. (EP 4156382 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 5. Claim 5 is anticipated by Hammerle.
Hammerle teaches the potting material includes a thermally conductive compound, but is silent as to a blown foam, a syntactic foam, and/or a non-foamed polymeric resin.
Choi teaches a potting resin 400 disposed within a channel partially surrounding a plurality of battery cells (Fig 2.). Choi at [0010 – 14], Fig. 2. Further, this potting resin “[0081] may ensure safety such as prevention of chain firing,” and “[0087] The potting resin 400 may be filled to cover the lower side of the battery cell assembly 100 so as to cover the vent units 165 of the battery cells 160.” Id. at [0081, 87].
One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Hammerle, such that the potting material of Hammerle is the potting resin of Choi, because Choi teaches a benefit to safety when utilizing the potting resin along the lower side of the battery cell assembly 100.
Claim 6 is obvious over Hammerle, in view of Choi.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 relies upon Claim 17. Claim 17 is anticipated by Hammerle.
Hammerle and modified Hammerle teach the potting material includes a thermally conductive compound, but is silent as to a blown foam, a syntactic foam, and/or a non-foamed polymeric resin.
Choi teaches a potting resin 400 disposed within a channel partially surrounding a plurality of battery cells (Fig 2.). Choi at [0010 – 14], Fig. 2. Further, this potting resin “[0081] may ensure safety such as prevention of chain firing,” and “[0087] The potting resin 400 may be filled to cover the lower side of the battery cell assembly 100 so as to cover the vent units 165 of the battery cells 160.” Id. at [0081, 87].
One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Hammerle, such that the potting material of Hammerle is the potting resin of Choi, because Choi teaches a benefit to safety when utilizing the potting resin along the lower side of the battery cell assembly 100.
Claim 20 is obvious over Hammerle, in view of Choi.
Claim 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammerle.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Hammerle.
Hammerle teaches a gap between the at least two pieces (see Fig. 5) but is silent as to the length of the gap.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a gap between the at least two pieces to be less than 3mm, because the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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, indicating the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 10 is obvious over Hammerle.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Hammerle.
Hammerle teaches a cell tray in the form of the first channel wall 30, upon which the cells 10 rest (Fig. 2), and a stacking second channel wall 34, wherein this wall is “disposed upon a cooling base 36 of the battery housing of the battery . . . . and the second channel wall 34 is provided by an underride guard of the motor vehicle.” These walls of the closed channel network are filled by the thermally conductive compound of Hammerle. However, while this gap filling thermally conductive compound fills the space, the connection between the O-ring, the compound, and the formed vent channel is not described directly as a “seal.” In terms of “includes cell tray and vent tray stacks sealed with other cell tray and vent tray stacks to create a sealed vent channel battery module,” sealed with does not require, for example, a particular horizontal or vertical stacking arrangement. However, “stacks” implies two of each cell tray and vent tray stacks, and Hammerle teaches one of each.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a gap filling would constitute a seal, such that the closed channel network includes cell tray and vent tray stacks sealed with other cell tray and vent tray stacks to create a sealed vent channel battery module, because Hammerle teaches a benefit in that the conductive compound connects the cells to the cooling base while keeping the releasable walls free. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious that the cell and vent tray stacks could be duplicated in an array-type structure, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI (B) For the foregoing reasons, Claim 11 is obvious over Hammerle.
Regarding Claim 17, Hammerle teaches a battery pack (battery pack 100) for a vehicle (“[0001] The invention also relates to a battery assembly and a motor vehicle”), comprising housing (Cell housing 14) including at least one pack vent between an interior and an exterior of the housing (releasable wall opening 38); a plurality of battery cells disposed within the housing (“[0037] To this end, FIG. 2 shows a schematic illustration of a battery assembly 12 with several battery cells 10”); and a vent system includes a closed channel network (degassing channel 28) under the cells in connection with a vent of the plurality of battery cells (cell-degassing openings 26) and the at least one pack vent. Hammerle at [0001, 37].
Hammerle teaches a manifold mounted on the closed channel network, a portion of the manifold mounted on the housing including a connector (the breakable portions which span the releasable degassing opening 26; see also, “[0035] such a degassing opening 26 can be provided, for example, with a bursting membrane that ruptures due to overpressure, which is provided, for example, by a thin metal foil that closes an opening in the cell housing 14”) installed from external to the housing that connects the manifold to a cell vent manifold mounted to a cell tray of the closed channel network. Hammerle at [0001, 40 – 44], Fig. 5. Regarding the meaning of a “manifold,” this is a pipe or channel into which another channel or pipe leads, and here, the manifold is the space between the channel wall 30 and the cell housing 14 shown in Fig. 5. Regarding the connector, a “connector installed from external to the housing” includes a component which is inserted within a receptacle from outside the housing, such as a membrane (“[0035] such a degassing opening 26 can be provided, for example, with a bursting membrane that ruptures due to overpressure, which is provided, for example, by a thin metal foil that closes an opening in the cell housing 14””).
Hammerle teaches a cell tray in the form of the first channel wall 30, upon which the cells 10 rest (Fig. 2), and a stacking second channel wall 34, wherein this wall is “disposed upon a cooling base 36 of the battery housing of the battery . . . . and the second channel wall 34 is provided by an underride guard of the motor vehicle.” These walls of the closed channel network are filled by the thermally conductive compound of Hammerle. However, while this gap filling thermally conductive compound fills the space, the connection between the O-ring, the compound, and the formed vent channel is not described directly as a “seal.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a gap filling would constitute a seal, such that the closed channel network includes cell tray and vent tray stacks sealed with other cell tray and vent tray stacks to create a sealed vent channel battery module, because Hammerle teaches a benefit in that the conductive compound connects the cells to the cooling base while keeping the releasable walls free. For the foregoing reasons, Claim 17 is obvious over Hammerle.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 relies upon Claim 17. Claim 17 is obvious over modified Hammerle. Hammerle recites, “[0021] In a further advantageous embodiment of the invention, a partition, in particular an O-ring, surrounding the wall opening and the assigned cell-degassing opening is arranged between the releasable wall opening and the assigned cell-degassing opening, which partition separates a free inner region between the cell-degassing opening and the wall opening from an outer region between the cell pack and the degassing channel, which is at least partially filled with a thermally conductive compound . . . Such an O-ring can be provided, for example, in the form of a foam strip, rubber ring, or a similar element that prevents such a thermally conductive compound, also known as a gap filler, from penetrating into this free area that is to be kept free.” Hammerle at [0021]. This is “the cell vent manifold include a sealing material for engaging the connector.” Regarding the connector, a “connector installed from external to the housing” includes a component which is inserted within a receptacle from outside the housing, such as a membrane (“[0035] such a degassing opening 26 can be provided, for example, with a bursting membrane that ruptures due to overpressure, which is provided, for example, by a thin metal foil that closes an opening in the cell housing 14””).
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 18 is obvious over Hammerle.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammerle, in view of Andersen, et. al. (US 20050147874 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 relies upon Claim 11. Claim 11 is obvious over Hammerle.
Hammerle is silent as to “the seal could be achieved using at least one of mechanical joining, fusion bonding, welding, solvent bonding and adhesive bonding.”
Andersen teaches a flat plate type, wherein the housing forms cell partitions 22, wherein these walls are separated from the cover 30 by a center partition 33, and wherein this center partition comprises an aperture 40. Andersen at [0025, 28, 36, 40]. Further, each of the vent barrels engaged upon the vents have “[0076] at least one seal or flange,” wherein this seal may include, “[0071] According to an exemplary embodiment, gang vents 50, 60 are coupled to battery 10 by means of a heat seal, adhesive, snap-fit, or other fastening mechanism. The particular fastening mechanism chosen may depend on a variety of factors, including manufacturability, cost, efficiency, and/or others.” Id. at [0071 – 76]. This indicates that, in certain circumstances, manufacturability and cost are improved by the use of a snap-fit structure (a mechanical joining) or heat sealing (fusion bonding).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery pack of Hammerle, such that its seal is achieved by mechanical joining, because Andersen teaches a cost and efficiency benefit to fastening using a snap-fit structure in certain circumstances.
Claim 12 is obvious over Hammerle, in view of Andersen.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 relies upon Claim 11. Claim 11 is obvious over Hammerle.
Andersen teaches “[0071] According to an exemplary embodiment, gang vents 50, 60 are coupled to battery 10 by means of a heat seal, adhesive, snap-fit, or other fastening mechanism. The particular fastening mechanism chosen may depend on a variety of factors, including manufacturability, cost, efficiency, and/or others.” Id. at [0071 – 76]. This indicates that, in certain circumstances, manufacturability and cost are improved by the use of a snap-fit structure (a mechanical joining) or heat sealing (fusion bonding).
As previously modified, the battery of modified Hammerle comprises a snap-fit seal as taught by Andersen. Further, as previously modified within claim 11, the cell tray and vent tray are duplicated such that they comprise cell tray and vent tray stacks; this presents an opportunity for the stacks to be connected to provide stability while maintain “manufacturability, cost, [and] efficiency.”
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify modified Hammerle, such that the ends of the cell trays facing another cell tray contain molded features to enable one of snap and press fitting, because Andersen teaches manufacturability and cost are improved by the use of a snap-fit structure (a mechanical joining) or heat sealing (fusion bonding).
Claim 13 is obvious over Hammerle, in view of Andersen.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammerle, in view of Obasih, et. al. (US 20160093935 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 relies upon Claim 11. Claim 11 is obvious over modified Hammerle.
Hammerle is silent as to a plurality of ribs.
Obasih teaches a series of electrochemical cells 30, held within a housing 31, wherein this housing comprises vents 76, such that “[0060] The flow guide cell extensions 140 may contact an adjacent electrochemical cell 30 to define multiple fluid channels between the electrochemical cells 30 (e.g., where the multiple fluid channels are in fluid communication with the entry point into the housing 31 and to the vent(s) 76), or the flow guide cell extensions 140 may engage with the flow guide cell extensions 140 of the adjacent electrochemical cell 30 to define the multiple fluid channels. Further, if the electrochemical cell 30 is the top or bottom electrochemical cell 30 in the stack 46, the flow guide cell extensions 140 may interface with a surface of the housing 31 to enable guiding of the air along the electrochemical cell 30 in accordance with the above description. An embodiment of two adjacent electrochemical cells 30 having engaged flow guide cell extensions 140 is shown in a schematic front view in FIG. 11.” This “guiding of the air” is beneficial because “[0046] [a]ccordingly, flow guide features may be disposed in the inside 64 of the housing 31 to provide air distribution. For example, the guide features may enable the air to flow from the back side 40 toward the front side 38 before being pushed through the vents 76 , which may enable more efficient and more even cooling of all of the electrochemical cells 30,” indicating these guides, which are equivalent to ribs, provide an improvement to efficient air transfer and even cooling. Further, this implies a benefit to using ribs to regulate airflow when, for example, air flows from a safety vent to the outside of the housing, because these guide features would also allow for an even distribution of gas and/or fluid and an even distribution of heated gas and/or fluid.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery pack of Hammerle, such that one of the vent tray and the cell tray include a plurality of ribs defining channels therebetween, because Obasih teaches a benefit to an improvement to efficient air transfer and even heat distribution.
Claim 14 is obvious over Hammerle, in view of Obasih.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammerle, in view of Juzkow, et. al. (US 20210218079 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 relies upon Claim 11. Claim 11 is obvious over modified Hammerle.
Hammerle is silent as to a thermal runaway sensor in communication with the channel network.
Juzkow teaches a system to detect thermal runaway in a battery pack, wherein, “[0019] In some embodiments, the present disclosure is directed to a thermally anisotropic material . . . positioned in spatial proximity to cell vents and thermal sensors positioned in operational contact with the thermally anisotropic material that together can sense rapidly and effectively an unusual thermal emission from one or more cells . . . In cylindrical and prismatic cells, one or more devices are typically designed into the cell to allow venting of excess pressure and prevent rupturing of the can, violent removal of the cell header, and expulsion of cell components.” Juzokw at [0019]. This also indicates a benefit to rapid and “early” (see title of Juzkow, Early Detection of Thermal Incident in Battery Pack) detection of a thermal runaway event and implying a benefit to allowing the cell adequate time to vent excess pressure and prevent a violent rupture or expulsion of cell components. Id.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery pack of Hammerle, such that it comprises a thermal runaway sensor in communication with the channel network (i.e. “in spatial proximity to cell vents”), because Hammerle teaches a benefit to rapid and early detection of thermal runaway, and because this presents an implied benefit to allowing the cell adequate time to vent excess pressure and prevent a violent rupture or expulsion of cell components.
Claim 15 is obvious over Hammerle, in view of Juzkow.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 relies upon Claim 11. Claim 11 is obvious over modified Hammerle.
Juzkow teaches a system to detect thermal runaway in a battery pack, wherein, “[0019] In some embodiments, the present disclosure is directed to a thermally anisotropic material . . . positioned in spatial proximity to cell vents and thermal sensors positioned in operational contact with the thermally anisotropic material that together can sense rapidly and effectively an unusual thermal emission from one or more cells . . . In cylindrical and prismatic cells, one or more devices are typically designed into the cell to allow venting of excess pressure and prevent rupturing of the can, violent removal of the cell header, and expulsion of cell components.” Juzkow at [0019]. Here, as previously applied to modified Hammerle, the thermal sensors are “in spatial proximity to cell vents”). Because the cell opening 26 is within and bordering the manifold, the location “in spatial proximity” to the vents would be mounted in the manifold.
For this reason, modified Hammerle teaches the thermal runaway sensor is mounted in the manifold.
Claim 16 is obvious over Hammerle, in view of Juzkow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725