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 . 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: (1) the claims recite a plurality of elements without the required separation by line indentation (see 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i)); and (2) the claims include improper spacing between words and punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “of the battery cell” in lines 2, 4, and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted to recite “of each of the plurality of battery cells.”
Claim 18 recites the abbreviations “PP” and “PC” in line 2 without first defining the abbreviations. For the purposes of examination “PP” will be interpreted to mean polypropylene and “PC” will be interpreted to mean polycarbonate.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tasiopoulos et al. (US 2019/0229384 A1), hereinafter “Tasiopoulos,” in view of Asanin et al. (US 2023/0056487 A1), hereinafter “Asanin.”
Regarding claim 1, Tasiopoulos discloses a battery comprising;
a plurality of battery cells (¶ [0016], Figs. 1-4, ref. no. 12), a first wall, in this case the eternal surface (¶ [0017], Fig. 2, ref. no. 18), of each of the plurality of battery cells being provided with a pressure relief mechanism actuated to relieve internal pressure when internal pressure or temperature exceeds a threshold, in this case the cell vents (¶ [0016], Fig. 2, ref. no. 16); and
a thermal management component for accommodating fluid to adjust the temperature of each of the plurality of battery cells, in this case the cooling system (¶ [0016], Figs. 1, 3, & 4, ref. no. 14);
wherein a first surface of the thermal management component is attached to the first wall (see Fig. 2, ref. nos. 16 & 18), the first surface is provided with an avoidance region corresponding to the pressure relief mechanism and configured to provide a deformation space for the pressure relief mechanism (see annotated Fig. 2, below).
Tasiopoulos does not disclose the destruction assisting substance. However, Asanin teaches including a destruction assisting substance, in this case a combustion promoter that contacts hot gases discharged from a battery cell so that the gas is ignited and burned off within the battery cell (¶ [0018]). This in turn prevents uncontrolled reactions outside of the battery cell by containing the combustion within the battery housing (see ¶ [0018]), which would result in the destruction of the thermal management component and the fluid contained within being discharged. One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a destruction assisting substance would have ensured that hot gases would not have escaped from the battery to react in the surrounding environment (see ¶ [0018]), thereby facilitating improved battery safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a destruction assisting substance in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Tasiopoulos does not disclose the destruction assisting substance. However, Asanin teaches the destruction assisting substance as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above, and further teaches that it releases oxygen, in this case the combustion promoter may be an oxidizing agent (¶ [0018] & [0028]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a destruction assisting substance would have ensured that hot gases would not have escaped from the battery to react in the surrounding environment (see ¶ [0018]), thereby facilitating improved battery safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a destruction assisting substance in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 4, Tasiopoulos does not disclose the destruction assisting substance. However, Asanin teaches the destruction assisting substance as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above, and further teaches that it releases heat under the action of the emissions of the battery cell after the pressure relief mechanism is actuated, in this case the combustion promotor causes the released gases to combust or burn (see ¶ [0018]), which necessarily releases heat. One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a destruction assisting substance would have ensured that hot gases would not have escaped from the battery to react in the surrounding environment (see ¶ [0018]), thereby facilitating improved battery safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a destruction assisting substance in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 6, Tasiopoulos further discloses that the avoidance region is a through hole in the thermal management component, in this case the apertures (¶ [0019], Figs. 2 & 3, ref. no. 26).
Regarding claim 7, Tasiopoulos does not disclose the destruction assisting substance. However, Asanin teaches the destruction assisting substance as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above. One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to place the destruction assisting substance in a position to perform its function in the event of the actuation of the pressure relief mechanism, thereby assuring safe combustion of the hot gases released from the battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have placed the destruction assisting substance on a sidewall of the through hole in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 8, Tasiopoulos further discloses that the avoidance region is a first groove in the thermal management component, in this case the protuberance (¶ [0020]), Fig. 2, ref. no. 28).
Regarding claim 9, Tasiopoulos does not disclose the destruction assisting substance. However, Asanin teaches the destruction assisting substance as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above. One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to place the destruction assisting substance in a position to perform its function in the event of the actuation of the pressure relief mechanism, thereby assuring safe combustion of the hot gases released from the battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have placed the destruction assisting substance on a sidewall of the first groove in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 10, Tasiopoulos does not disclose the destruction assisting substance. However, Asanin teaches the destruction assisting substance as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above. Asanin does not specify its thickness. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to provide an appropriately-sized destruction assistance substance in order to have ensured safe combustion of the hot gases released from the battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the thickness of the destruction assisting substance to be 3 mm to 10 mm in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 11, Tasiopoulos does not disclose the destruction assisting substance. However, Asanin teaches the destruction assisting substance as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above. One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to place the destruction assisting substance in a position to perform its function in the event of the actuation of the pressure relief mechanism, thereby assuring safe combustion of the hot gases released from the battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have placed the destruction assisting substance on a bottom wall of the first groove in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 12, Tasiopoulos does not disclose the destruction assisting substance. However, Asanin teaches the destruction assisting substance as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above. Asanin does not specify its thickness. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to provide an appropriately-sized destruction assistance substance in order to have ensured safe combustion of the hot gases released from the battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the thickness of the destruction assisting substance to be less than or equal to 2 mm in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 13, Tasiopoulos does not disclose the destruction assisting substance. However, Asanin teaches the destruction assisting substance as discussed in the rejection of claim 11, above. One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to place the destruction assisting substance in a position to perform its function in the event of the actuation of the pressure relief mechanism, thereby assuring safe combustion of the hot gases released from the battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have placed the destruction assisting substance on a bottom wall of a second groove in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 14, neither Tasiopoulos nor Asanin teach the thickness of the destruction assisting substance. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to provide an appropriately-sized destruction assistance substance in order to have ensured safe combustion of the hot gases released from the battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the thickness of the destruction assisting substance to be less than or equal to that of the groove in which it was positioned in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 15, Tasiopoulos does not disclose the destruction assisting substance. However, Asanin teaches the destruction assisting substance as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above, and further teaches that it is wrapped in an encapsulation film, in this case a shell that may be a film (¶ [0018], Fig. 1, ref. no. 12). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a destruction assisting substance wrapped in an encapsulation film would have ensured that hot gases would not have escaped from the battery to react in the surrounding environment (see ¶ [0018]), thereby facilitating improved battery safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a destruction assisting substance wrapped in an encapsulation film in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 16, Tasiopoulos does not disclose the destruction assisting substance. However, Asanin teaches the destruction assisting substance as discussed in the rejection of claim 15, above, and further teaches that the encapsulation film is bonded and fixed in the avoidance region, in this case the shell may be adhesively bonded to an inner side of a housing wall (¶ [0028]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a destruction assisting substance wrapped in an encapsulation film bonded and fixed in the avoidance region would have ensured that hot gases would not have escaped from the battery to react in the surrounding environment (see ¶ [0018]), thereby facilitating improved battery safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a destruction assisting substance wrapped in an encapsulation film bonded and fixed in the avoidance region in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 17, Tasiopoulos does not disclose the destruction assisting substance. However, Asanin teaches the destruction assisting substance as discussed in the rejection of claim 15, above, and further teaches that the destruction assisting substance is a powder, in this case the combustion promoter is in powder form (¶ [0018]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a destruction assisting substance would have ensured that hot gases would not have escaped from the battery to react in the surrounding environment (see ¶ [0018]), thereby facilitating improved battery safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a destruction assisting substance in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 19, Tasiopoulos further discloses that the thermal management component is made of aluminum, in this case the cooling plates of the cooling system are made of aluminum (¶ [0021], Fig. 3, ref. nos. 14, 20, & 21).
Regarding claim 20, Tasiopoulos further discloses:
a first thermally conductive plate, in this case the first cooling plate (¶ [0018], Fig. 3, ref. no. 20), and
a second thermally conductive plate, in this case the second cooling plate (¶ [0018], Fig. 3, ref. no. 21),
the first thermally conductive plate being located between the first wall and the second thermally conductive plate and attached to the first wall (see Fig. 3, ref. nos. 12, 20, & 21),
a first region of the first thermally conductive plate having a through hole, in this case the apertures (¶ [0019], fig. 3, ref. no. 26),
a second region of the second thermally conductive plate corresponding to the first region, in this case the protuberances (¶ [0020], Fig. 3, ref. no. 28), and
the second region protruding in a direction away from the first thermally conductive plate to form the avoidance region (see annotated Fig. 2, above).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tasiopoulos and Asanin as applied to claim 2, above, and further in view of Mizuike et al. (US 2015/0325840 A1), hereinafter “Mizuike.”
Regarding claim 3, Tasiopoulos does not disclose the destruction assisting substance. Asanin teaches the destruction assisting substance as discussed in the rejection of claim 2, above, and further teaches that the substance may be a permanganate (¶ [0028]). Asanin does not specify a potassium permanganate. However, Mizuike teaches that potassium permanganate may be used as an oxidizing agent (¶ [0034]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the potassium permanganate of Mizuike for the permanganate taught by Asanin would have yielded the predictable result of providing the desired oxidizing effect on released battery gases, thereby facilitating improved battery safety. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the potassium permanganate for the permanganate in order to yield the predictable result of improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 5, Tasiopoulos does not disclose the destruction assisting substance. Asanin teaches the destruction assisting substance as discussed in the rejection of claim 2, above, and further teaches that the substance may be a permanganate (¶ [0028]). Asanin does not teach manganese dioxide. However, Mizuike teaches that manganese dioxide may be substituted for potassium permanganate as an oxidizing agent. (¶ [0034]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting manganese dioxide for the permanganate as taught by Mizuike would have yielded the predictable result of providing the desired oxidizing effect on released battery gases, thereby facilitating improved battery safety. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted manganese dioxide for permanganate in order to yield the predictable result of improved battery safety.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tasiopoulos and Asanin as applied to claim 15, above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0119300 A1), hereinafter “Li.”
Regarding claim 18, Tasiopoulos does not disclose the destruction assisting substance. Asanin teaches the destruction assisting substance as discussed in the rejection of claim 15, above, and further teaches that the encapsulation film may be a polyethylene (PE) film (¶ [0028]), but does not specify a polypropylene (PP) film. However, Li teaches that PP may be substituted for PE to make components that melt in response to increased temperature (¶ [0090]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting PP for PE would have yielded the predictable result of the film melting at the desired temperature, thereby exposing the destruction assistance substance to the battery gases as desired and facilitating improved battery safety. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted PP for PE in order to yield the predictable result of improved battery safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729