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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation the fuse “has a thickness less than a thickness of the negative end lead” lacks written description support in the specification.
Although the specification describes a fuse and a negative end lead associated with a battery cell (para 27), the specification does not describe or identify any dimensional relationship between the thickness of the fuse and the thickness of the anode. The specification does not provide any dimension, ratios or other indication that the inventors possessed a fuse having a thickness less than the thickness of the negative end lead.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “mechanically compressed” and “mechanical seal” lacks written description support in the specification.
Although the specification describes isolator 150 provided between the negative end lead 134 of the anode 124 (para 19), the specification does not describe the isolator as being mechanically compressed between the housing and the negative end lead or that the isolator provides a mechanical seal due to such compression.
The specification does not convey to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention that the inventors were in possession of an isolator that is mechanically compressed between the housing and the negative end lead or that a mechanical seal is provided by such compression.
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, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohlberger (DE 10214204497A1; see machine translation of record) in view of Zeng et al. (US 10573876).
Regarding claim 1, Kohlberger discloses a battery module for an electrified vehicle, the battery module comprising (para 0001 “battery module and a vehicle having a such a battery cell”): a first battery cell (para 38 “the battery cell 10”) including: a housing (para 38, housing 14); a cathode 17 disposed in the housing (para 38, positive electrode 17, fig 1); a positive end lead arranged on the housing and electrically connected to the cathode (para 39, “terminals 21, 23 for electrical connection; fig 1); an anode 18 disposed in the housing (para 38, negative electrode 18, fig 1) ; a negative end lead 21 arranged on the housing (para 38-39, “terminals 21, 23 for electrical connection”; fig 1); an isolator disposed between the housing and the negative end lead, the isolator inhibiting voltage from passing between the housing and the anode (para 39, “the negative electrode 18 additionally has a bushing insulation 24 which isolates the connection bushing 21 from the housing cover 16”).
Kohlberger fails to disclose a fuse electrically connected between the anode and the negative end lead, the fuse comprising a reduced cross-section of material forming a failure point, the fuse configured to fail and permanently sever electrical communication between the anode and the negative end lead as a result of an overcurrent condition caused by a short circuit condition in the battery module, whereby upon failure of the fuse, the isolator prevents voltage from passing from the housing to the anode via the negative end lead, inhibiting voltage from passing between the housing and the anode in the short circuit condition.
Zeng, drawn also the battery art, discloses a fuse 335 design for a battery module, comprising: a fuse 335 electrically connected between the anode and the negative end lead (claim 1), the fuse comprising a reduced cross-section of material forming a failure point (C7, L39-50), the fuse configured to fail and permanently sever electrical communication between the anode and the negative end lead (C3, L50-53) as a result of an overcurrent condition caused by a short circuit condition in the battery module (C8, L20-31), whereby upon failure of the fuse, the isolator prevents voltage from passing from the housing to the anode via the negative end lead, inhibiting voltage from passing between the housing and the anode (C4, L17-30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the battery module of Kohlberger such that a fuse is electrically connected between the anode and the negative end lead, the fuse comprises a reduced cross-section of material forming a failure point, the fuse is configured to fail and permanently sever electrical communication between the anode and the negative end lead as a result of an overcurrent condition caused by a short circuit condition in the battery module, whereby upon failure of the fuse, the isolator prevents voltage from passing from the housing to the anode via the negative end lead, inhibiting voltage from passing between the housing and the anode in the short circuit condition as taught by Zeng above as doing such reduces the risk of, and potential damage from, a short circuit condition as detailed above.
Regarding claim 4, Zeng discloses the fuse defines at least one hole therethrough, wherein the at least one hole reduces a cross-sectional area of the fuse to form a failure region configured to sever upon an overcurrent condition (C7, L39-50) and wherein the fuse is formed of aluminum (C3, L58-61) and has a thickness less than a thickness of the negative end lead (fig. 1A)
Alternatively, if it not taken that Zhang discloses fuse has a thickness less than a thickness of the negative end lead, the following rejection is set forth: It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, for the thickness of the fuse to be less than the thickness of the negative end lead because the claimed limitation merely recites a relative dimensional relationship. Varying the thickness would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent criticality demonstrated by the applicant (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 11, Kohlberger discloses battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells electrically connected in a series (para 25) and an isolator disposed between the housing and the respective negative end lead (para 39).
Kohlberger does not disclose each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells includes a respective fuse electrically connected between the respective anode and the respective negative end lead.
Zeng discloses a battery cell with a fuse electrically connected between the respective anode and the respective negative end lead (Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the battery module of Kohlberger such that each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells of comprises the fuse arrangement taught by Zeng as doing such ensures the enclosure can be maintained off anode potential even after a fault event (C4, L32-35). Incorporating the known fuse arrangement taught by Zeng into each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells of Kohlberger would have been a predictable use of known protective feature to yield expected safety benefits.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohlberger (DE 10214204497A1) and Zeng et al. (US 10573876), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olashaw (US 4181396 A).
Regarding claim 2, Kohlberger and Zeng discloses a first electrical connection formed between the fuse and the negative end lead, a second electrical connection is formed between the fuse and the anode (Zeng, C1, L48-50) and wherein the fuse and the negative end lead are each formed of aluminum (Zeng, C3, L58-61 and C4, L9-16) and the anode is formed of copper (Kohlberger, para 19).
Zeng does not disclose the first electrical connection is formed by a first welding, second electrical connection formed by a second welding wherein first welding is aluminum to aluminum weld and second welding is aluminum- to-copper friction weld.
Olashaw discloses aluminum to aluminum welds reduce the risk of cold flow (C1, L20-30). Olashaw further discloses aluminum insert friction welded to a copper plate (Abstract, C1, L20-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the battery module of Kohlberger and Zeng such that the first electrical connection is formed by first welding, wherein first welding is aluminum to aluminum weld and second electrical connection is formed by a second welding, wherein second welding is aluminum- to-copper friction weld as taught by Olashaw above as doing such reduces cold flow risk (C1, L11-15) and expectedly joins copper anode and aluminum fuse (C1, L20-45).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohlberger (DE 10214204497A1) and Zeng et al. (US 10573876), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ling et al. (US 20180159098A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kohlberger discloses an isolator 24 between the housing and the negative end lead such that the isolator provides both electrical isolation (para 39).
Kohlberger fails to disclose isolator is formed of elastomeric material.
Ling discloses an isolator layer 225 comprised of silicone rubber (C4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the battery module of Kohlberger and Zeng such that isolator is formed of elastomeric material as taught by Ling above as doing such expectedly inhibits voltage from affecting the housing.
Kohlberger and Ling do not explicitly disclose the isolator is mechanically compressed between the housing and the negative end lead such that the isolator provides a mechanical seal between the negative end lead and the housing. However, the modified elastomeric isolator of Kohlberger and Ling would necessarily be compressed between the housing and the negative end lead when assembled, and thus provide the recited mechanical seal.
The examiner notes that the limitation that the isolator is “mechanically compressed” is not given patentable distinction because it is a method limitation in a product claim. The “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”. Only the “structure implied by the process steps should be considered”. See MPEP 2113.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohlberger (DE 10214204497A1) and Zeng et al. (US 10573876), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 20040142246 A1).
Zeng discloses a film membrane disposed within the housing (C6, L48-51). Zeng fails to disclose a polyester film membrane.
Han discloses a polyester film membrane (para 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the battery module of Kohlberger and Zeng such that the polyester film membrane is made of polyester as taught by Han above as doing such allows ions included in the electrolytic solution to migrate smoothly (para 45).
Claim(s) 13-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohlberger (DE 10214204497A1) see machine translation of record) in view of Zeng et al. (US 10573876) and further in view of Olashaw (US 4181396 A) and Ling et al. (US 20180159098 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Kohlberger discloses a battery module for an electrified vehicle, the battery module comprising (para 0001 “battery module and a vehicle having a such a battery cell”): a first battery cell (para 38 “the battery cell 10”) including: a housing (para 38, housing 14); a cathode 17 disposed in the housing (para 38, positive electrode 17, fig 1); the cathode formed of aluminum (paragraph 18); a positive end lead arranged on the housing and electrically connected to the cathode (para 39, “terminals 21, 23 for electrical connection”; fig 1), wherein the housing is electrically connected to the positive end lead (para 21); an anode 18 disposed in the housing (para 38, negative electrode 18, fig 1); the anode formed of copper (para 19) ; a negative end lead arranged on the housing (para 38-39, “terminals 21, 23 for electrical connection”; fig 1); an isolator disposed between the housing and the negative end lead, the isolator inhibiting voltage from passing between the housing and the negative end lead; wherein the isolator electrically isolates the negative end lead from the housing (para 39, the negative electrode 18 additionally has a bushing insulation 24 which isolates the connection bushing 21 from the housing cover 16”).
Kohlberger fails to disclose a positive end lead formed of aluminum; negative end lead formed of aluminum; the isolator formed of elastomeric material; an aluminum fuse electrically connected between the anode and the negative end lead; the aluminum fuse defining at least one hole therethrough forming a reduced cross-sectional area configured as a failure point; and a friction weld formed between the aluminum fuse and the copper anode; wherein the fuse is configured to permanently fail and sever electrical communication between the anode and the negative end lead as a result of an overcurrent condition caused by a short circuit condition in the battery module whereby voltage is inhibited from passing between the housing and the anode in a short circuit condition due to the failed fuse and the isolator.
Zeng discloses a positive end lead formed of aluminum (C3, L58-60); a negative end lead formed of aluminum (C4, L9-16); an aluminum fuse electrically connected between the anode and the negative end lead (Claim 1; C3, L58-61); the aluminum fuse defining at least one hole therethrough forming a reduced cross-sectional area configured as a failure point (C7, L39-50); wherein the fuse is configured to permanently fail and sever electrical communication between the anode and the negative end lead as a result of an overcurrent condition caused by a short circuit condition in the battery module (C3, L50-53 and C8, L20-31), whereby voltage is inhibited from passing between the housing and the anode in a short circuit condition due to the failed fuse and the isolator (C4, L31-41). This in turn reduces the risk of, and potential damage from, a short circuit condition (Zeng, C4, L17-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the battery module of Kohlberger such that a positive end lead is formed of aluminum; a negative end lead is formed of aluminum; an aluminum fuse electrically connected between the anode and the negative end lead; wherein the fuse is configured to fail as a result of a short circuit condition in the battery module, whereby voltage is inhibited from passing between the housing and the anode in a short circuit condition due to the failed fuse and the isolator as taught by Zeng above as doing such reduces the risk of, and potential damage from, a short circuit condition as detailed above.
Kohlberger and Zeng fail to disclose the isolator formed of elastomeric material. Ling discloses an isolator layer 225 comprised of silicone rubber (C4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the battery module of Kohlberger and Zeng such that isolator is formed of elastomeric material as taught by Ling above as doing such expectedly inhibits voltage from affecting the housing.
Kohlberger and Zeng fail to disclose a friction weld formed between the aluminum fuse and the copper anode. Olashaw discloses a friction weld formed between an aluminum insert and a copper plate (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the battery module of Kohlberger and Zeng such that copper anode is friction welded to aluminum resulting in aluminum to copper weld as taught by Olashaw above as doing such joins expectedly joining copper anode and aluminum fuse (C1, L20-45).
Regarding claim 14, Olashaw discloses aluminum insert friction welded to a copper plate (Abstract, (C1, L20-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the battery module of Kohlberger and Zeng such that copper anode is friction welded to aluminum fuse as taught by Olashaw above as doing such results in considerable success compared to other welding techniques (C1, L20-45).
Regarding claim 15, Zeng discloses the fuse defines hole 215 therein (C7, L39-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the fuse of Kohlberger such that fuse defines the holes as disclosed by Zeng as doing such configures fuse to deform, break, melt (C7, L44-47).
Regarding claim 17, Kohlberger discloses battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells electrically connected in a series (para 25).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohlberger (DE 10214204497A1), Zeng et al. (US 10573876), Olashaw (US 4181396 A) and Ling (US 20180159098 A1), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 20040142246 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Zeng discloses a film membrane disposed within the housing (C6, L48-51). Zeng fails to disclose a polyester film membrane.
Han discloses a polyester film membrane (para 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the battery module of Kohlberger and Zeng such that the film membrane is made of polyester as taught by Han above as doing such allows ions included in the electrolytic solution to migrate smoothly (para 45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/03/2026, have been fully considered but they are either not persuasive or moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C.103, on page 3 of the Remarks, the applicant asserts the fuse disclosed in Zeng is provided “at the battery pack interconnection level” and therefore does not correspond to the claimed fuse included in an individual battery cell. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Zeng is not limited to fuse located at a battery pack interconnection level. Rather, Zeng discloses a battery cell having a fuse incorporated within the cell structure (C2, L26-33; fig 1A).
In the succeeding paragraph, the Applicant asserts that the references do not teach or suggest the “dual-element, cooperative protection architecture”. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection is based on the combination of references. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Kohlberger teaches the isolator and Zang teaches the fuse. It would have been obvious to combine these known battery protection features to predictably provide complementary protection functions.
In the last paragraph of page 3, the applicant asserts “Kohlberger's selectively conductive material creates a reversible voltage-triggered connection rather than a fixed housing potential assignment tied to a sacrificial fuse”. This argument is not persuasive because it is not germane to the basis of the rejection. Kohlberger is not relied upon for teaching a fuse, a sacrificial fuse or the operation of a reversible conductive polymer.
Applicant further asserts that neither Kohlberger or Zeng “describes an intra-cell fuse with a defined mechanical failure geometry”. This argument is not persuasive in light of new grounds of rejection. Zeng discloses an intra cell fuse with reduced cross section (refer to claim 1 rejection) which constitutes mechanical failure geometry. Applicant’s citation of an alternative embodiment is not germane as the examiner relies on the embodiment detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Applicant is respectfully reminded that references are good for all they disclose.
Regarding claim 13 on page 4 of the remarks, the applicant asserts that Kohlberger does not disclose a friction weld or an aluminum fuse with holes. This argument is not persuasive because it is not germane to the basis of the rejection. Kohlberger is not relied upon for teaching a friction weld or an aluminum fuse with holes.
The applicant further asserts “Zeng does not disclose the cooperative isolator-fuse architecture at the individual cell level with the material combinations”. This argument is not persuasive because Zeng is not relied upon to disclose isolator-fuse with the material combination. The claim is rejected based on the combination of references. Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually and in a vacuum of each other as a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is a consideration relating to the combined teachings of the references (and not each reference in a vacuum of the others).
In succeeding sentence, the applicant asserts “Olashaw’s friction welded aluminum to copper connector is macroscopic high ampacity structural joint not designed to fail” and thus does not disclose claimed fuse. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims require the fuse itself to fail and sever communication. The claims do not require the structural joint to be designed to fail. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTI KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8608. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-5pm.
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, Michael N Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights