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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed July 11, 2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and an initialed copied is attached herewith.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10 & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG CN-218887381-U in view of KIM et al CN-215869599-U.
With respect to claim 1, SONG teaches a battery module (group of batteries 5; Fig. 1 & See “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7), comprising: a rigid battery fixture (rigid battery box, See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 10) ; a battery cell confined in the rigid battery fixture (group of batteries 5 in the rigid battery box; Fig. 1 & See “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7); and a crushable insert layer, having a crushing strength, that is disposed inside of the rigid battery fixture adjacent to the battery cell (314. honeycomb aluminum core; Fig. 1, Abstract & See “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7; and top plate 1 is a foam aluminum piece; Fig. 1 & See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 3; Furthermore, the battery box is designed to: ensure the collision energy absorbing effect and rigidity, ensuring no damage to the battery 5 after collision, and effectively protecting the safety of the battery 5 and the whole vehicle; See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 16; Examiner’s Note: It would be reasonable to expect foam aluminum and honeycomb aluminum to have a crushable point, thus a crushing strength even if di minimus. No material is indestructible).
PNG
media_image1.png
651
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the crushable insert layer comprises a metal honeycomb material (314. honeycomb aluminum core; Fig. 1, Abstract & See “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7; and top plate 1 is a foam aluminum piece; Fig. 1 & See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 3). With respect to claim 3,
the metal honeycomb material comprises an aluminum metal honeycomb material (314. honeycomb aluminum core; Fig. 1, Abstract & See “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7; and top plate 1 is a foam aluminum piece; Fig. 1 & See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 3). With respect to claim 4, the crushable insert layer comprises a porous metal foam material (top plate 1 is a foam aluminum piece; Fig. 1 & See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 3). With respect to claim 5, the porous metal foam material comprises a porous aluminum foam material (and top plate 1 is a foam aluminum piece; Fig. 1 & See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 3). With respect to claim 19, a method for making a battery module (group of batteries 5; Fig. 1 & See “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7), the method comprising: providing a battery cell (5; Fig. 1); providing a rigid battery fixture (rigid battery box, See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 10); confining the battery cell in the rigid battery fixture (group of batteries 5 in the rigid battery box; Fig. 1 & See “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7); and disposing a crushable insert layer, having a crushing strength, inside of the rigid battery fixture adjacent to the battery cell (314. honeycomb aluminum core; Fig. 1, Abstract & See “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7; and top plate 1 is a foam aluminum piece; Fig. 1 & See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 3; Furthermore, the battery box is designed to: ensure the collision energy absorbing effect and rigidity, ensuring no damage to the battery 5 after collision, and effectively protecting the safety of the battery 5 and the whole vehicle; See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 16; Examiner’s Note: It would be reasonable to expect foam aluminum and honeycomb aluminum to have a crushable point, thus a crushing strength even if di minimus. No material is indestructible). With respect to claim 20, the crushable insert layer comprises an aluminum honeycomb material or a porous aluminum metal foam material (aluminum foam and aluminum honeycomb layer materials; “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7; and “Specific implementation examples”).
Although SONG teaches the battery box is designed to ensure the collision energy absorbing effect and rigidity, ensuring no damage to the battery 5 after collision, and effectively protecting the safety of the battery 5 and the whole vehicle; See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 16; the refence does not teach with sufficient specificity: the crushable insert layer and the rigid battery fixture are cooperatively configured to limit internal battery pressure buildup inside of the battery cell during recharging cycles to be less than or equal to the crushing strength of the crushable insert layer (claims 1 & 19); the crushable insert layer has a crushing strength ranging from 1 to 1.5 MPa (claim 6); the battery module comprises a Lithium-ion or Lithium-Metal battery module (claims 10 & 20).
KIM teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the crushable insert layer and the rigid battery fixture are cooperatively configured to limit internal battery pressure buildup inside of the battery cell during recharging cycles to be less than or equal to the crushing strength of the crushable insert layer (pads, based on size, that apply uniform pressure on the battery cells to prevent performance degradation, and when the battery module 100 in the expansion of the battery unit 110, the pad 400 can be used for absorbing expansion; Examiner’s Note: It would be reasonable to expect the outer casing to work in conjunction with the pad to limit pressure by applying external pressure as a function of containment; this module; claims 1 & 19); the battery module comprises a Lithium-ion or Lithium-Metal battery module (lithium ion battery; See “Specific implementation examples”, paragraph 19; claims 10 & 20).
SONG and KIM are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricated energy absorbing layers to protect batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the crushable insert layer and the rigid battery fixture being cooperatively configured to limit internal battery pressure buildup inside of the battery cell during recharging cycles to be less than or equal to the crushing strength of the crushable insert layer as suggested by Kim, as the battery module configuration of SONG, in order to prevent performance degradation as taught by Kim. Furthermore, SONG teaches a aluminum foam layer and aluminum honeycomb layer that absorb collision energy to protect the battery, so it would be reasonable to expect based on size, as suggested by Kim, that the battery box containment and aluminum materials apply pressure to stabilize the pressure of the cells to protect battery performance. The skilled artisan also recognizes that size, density and shape of materials directly affect ability to compress and absorb expansion energy. It has been held that change in size of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Lastly, SONG teaches the same aluminum foam and aluminum honeycomb layer materials set forth by Applicant. See SONG at “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7; and “Specific implementation examples”. In accordance with MPEP 2112.01, “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the ability to limit internal battery pressure buildup inside the battery cell during recharging cycles to be less than or equal to the cursing strength of the crushable insert layer is necessarily present.
With respect to the crushable insert layer having a crushing strength ranging from 1 to 1.5 MPa (claim 6); it would have been obvious in the battery module of SONG in view of KIM, in order to protect the battery under excess pressure. SONG teaches the same aluminum foam and aluminum honeycomb layer materials set forth by Applicant. See SONG at “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7; and “Specific implementation examples”. In accordance with MPEP 2112.01, “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, a crushing strength ranging from 1 to 1.5 MPa is necessarily present. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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.
Claim(s) 7-9 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG CN-218887381-U in view of KIM et al CN-215869599-U, and further in view of CENG et al. CN-107719138-A.
SONG in view of KIM teaches a battery module as described in the rejection recited hereinabove, including: crushable insert layers of aluminum foam and aluminum honeycomb layer materials; See SONG at “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7; and “Specific implementation examples”.
SONG does not teach or suggest: the crushable insert layer is infused with a polymeric material to make a polymer-infused crushable insert layer (claim 7); the polymer-infused crushable insert layer has a surface; and wherein the battery module further comprises an additional layer comprising a polymeric material that is disposed on the surface of the polymer-infused crushable insert layer (claim 8); the polymeric material is chosen from silicone, silicone foam, polyurethane, polyurethane foam, EDPM, EDPM foam, rubber, rubber foam, or combinations thereof (claim 9); a polymeric interlayer disposed adjacent to the crushable insert layer, inside of the rigid battery fixture (claim 11).
CENG teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the crushable insert layer is infused with a polymeric material to make a polymer-infused crushable insert layer (fill the honeycomb collision layers with polyurethane foam for buffer function; See “[Description of figures]”, paragraph 16; claim 7); the polymeric material is chosen from silicone, silicone foam, polyurethane, polyurethane foam, EDPM, EDPM foam, rubber, rubber foam, or combinations thereof (fill the honeycomb collision layers with polyurethane foam; See “[Description of figures]”, paragraph 16; claim 9); a polymeric interlayer disposed adjacent to the crushable insert layer, inside of the rigid battery fixture (fill the honeycomb collision layers with polyurethane foam; See “[Description of figures]”, paragraph 16; claim 11).
SONG, KIM & CENG and are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricated energy absorbing layers to protect batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the crushable insert layer being infused with a polymeric material to make a polymer-infused crushable insert layer of polyurethane foam as taught by CENG, in the battery module of SONG in view of KIM, in order to provide more buffer function as taught by CENG. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to the polymer-infused crushable insert layer having a surface; and wherein the battery module further comprises an additional layer comprising a polymeric material that is disposed on the surface of the polymer-infused crushable insert layer (claim 8); it would have been obvious in the polymer-infused crushable insert layer of SONG in view of KIM & CENG, in order to provide more buffer function as taught by CENG. Furthermore, duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
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.
Claim(s) 12-15 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG CN-218887381-U in view of KIM et al CN-215869599-U, and further in view of Khamis et al. US-20230144986-A1.
With respect to claim 12, SONG teaches a prismatic battery module (prismatic group of batteries 5; Fig. 1 & See “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7), comprising: a rigid battery fixture (rigid battery box, See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 10) ; a battery cell confined in the rigid battery fixture (group of batteries 5 in the rigid battery box; Fig. 1 & See “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7); and a crushable insert layer, having a crushing strength, that is disposed inside of the rigid battery fixture adjacent to the battery cell (314. honeycomb aluminum core; Fig. 1, Abstract & See “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7; and top plate 1 is a foam aluminum piece; Fig. 1 & See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 3; Furthermore, the battery box is designed to: ensure the collision energy absorbing effect and rigidity, ensuring no damage to the battery 5 after collision, and effectively protecting the safety of the battery 5 and the whole vehicle; See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 16; Examiner’s Note: It would be reasonable to expect foam aluminum and honeycomb aluminum to have a crushable point, thus a crushing strength even if di minimus. No material is indestructible).
PNG
media_image1.png
651
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13, the crushable insert layer comprises an aluminum metal honeycomb material (314. honeycomb aluminum core; Fig. 1, Abstract & See “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7; and top plate 1 is a foam aluminum piece; Fig. 1 & See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 3). With respect to claim 14, the crushable insert layer comprises a porous metal aluminum foam material (top plate 1 is a foam aluminum piece; Fig. 1 & See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 3
Although SONG teaches the battery box is designed to ensure the collision energy absorbing effect and rigidity, ensuring no damage to the battery 5 after collision, and effectively protecting the safety of the battery 5 and the whole vehicle; See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 16; the refence does not teach with sufficient specificity: the crushable insert layer and the rigid battery fixture are cooperatively configured to limit internal battery pressure buildup inside of the battery cell during recharging cycles to be less than or equal to the crushing strength of the crushable insert layer (claim 12); an electric motor vehicle, comprising: a vehicle body with a passenger compartment; a plurality of road wheels attached to the vehicle body; one or more traction motors attached to the vehicle body that are operable to drive one or more of the plurality of road wheels to thereby propel the electric motor vehicle; and a traction battery pack attached to the vehicle body and electrically connected to the one or more traction motors; wherein the traction battery pack comprises a plurality of prismatic battery modules arranged in mutually parallel rows (claim 12); the crushable insert layer has a crushing strength ranging from 1 to 1.5 MPa (claim 15); the battery module comprises a Lithium-ion or Lithium-Metal battery module (claim 18).
KIM teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the crushable insert layer and the rigid battery fixture are cooperatively configured to limit internal battery pressure buildup inside of the battery cell during recharging cycles to be less than or equal to the crushing strength of the crushable insert layer (pads, based on size, that apply uniform pressure on the battery cells to prevent performance degradation, and when the battery module 100 in the expansion of the battery unit 110, the pad 400 can be used for absorbing expansion; Examiner’s Note: It would be reasonable to expect the outer casing to work in conjunction with the pad to limit pressure by applying external pressure as a function of containment; this module; claim 12); the battery module comprises a Lithium-ion or Lithium-Metal battery module (lithium ion battery; See “Specific implementation examples”, paragraph 19; claim 18).
Khamis teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: an electric motor vehicle (electric-drive vehicle 10; [0032]), comprising: a vehicle body with a passenger compartment (See car in Fig. 1); a plurality of road wheels attached to the vehicle body (See car with road wheels attached to the vehicle body in Fig. 1); one or more traction motors attached to the vehicle body that are operable to drive one or more of the plurality of road wheels to thereby propel the electric motor vehicle (traction motor 78; chassis-mounted traction battery pack 70, that is operatively connected to an electric traction motor 78; [0032]); and a traction battery pack attached to the vehicle body and electrically connected to the one or more traction motors (chassis-mounted traction battery pack 70, that is operatively connected to an electric traction motor 78; [0032]); wherein the traction battery pack comprises a plurality of prismatic battery modules arranged in mutually parallel rows (traction battery pack 70 is generally composed of one or more battery modules 72 each having a stack of battery cells 74, such as lithium ion, lithium polymer, or nickel metal hydride battery cells of the prismatic type; [0032]; claim 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the crushable insert layer and the rigid battery fixture being cooperatively configured to limit internal battery pressure buildup inside of the battery cell during recharging cycles to be less than or equal to the crushing strength of the crushable insert layer as suggested by Kim, as the battery module configuration of SONG, in order to prevent performance degradation as taught by Kim. Furthermore, SONG teaches a aluminum foam layer and aluminum honeycomb layer that absorb collision energy to protect the battery, so it would be reasonable to expect based on size, as suggested by Kim, that the battery box containment and aluminum materials apply pressure to stabilize the pressure of the cells to protect battery performance. The skilled artisan also recognizes that size, density and shape of materials directly affect ability to compress and absorb expansion energy. It has been held that change in size of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Lastly, SONG teaches the same aluminum foam and aluminum honeycomb layer materials set forth by Applicant. See SONG at “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7; and “Specific implementation examples”. In accordance with MPEP 2112.01, “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the ability to limit internal battery pressure buildup inside the battery cell during recharging cycles to be less than or equal to the cursing strength of the crushable insert layer is necessarily present.
Further concerning claim 12, it would have been obvious to employ the electric motor vehicle, comprising: a vehicle body with a passenger compartment; a plurality of road wheels attached to the vehicle body; one or more traction motors attached to the vehicle body that are operable to drive one or more of the plurality of road wheels to thereby propel the electric motor vehicle; and a traction battery pack attached to the vehicle body and electrically connected to the one or more traction motors; wherein the traction battery pack comprises a plurality of prismatic battery modules arranged in mutually parallel rows of Khamis, as the electric motor vehicle to accommodate the battery module of SONG in view of Kim, in order to for provisioning crowdsourced vehicle charging and vehicle grid integration operations.
With respect to the crushable insert layer having a crushing strength ranging from 1 to 1.5 MPa (claim 15); it would have been obvious in the battery module of SONG in view of KIM & Khamis, in order to protect the battery under excess pressure. SONG teaches the same aluminum foam and aluminum honeycomb layer materials set forth by Applicant. See SONG at “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7; and “Specific implementation examples”. In accordance with MPEP 2112.01, “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, a crushing strength ranging from 1 to 1.5 MPa is necessarily present. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG CN-218887381-U in view of KIM et al CN-215869599-U, and further in view of Khamis et al. US-20230144986-A1, and even further in view of CENG et al. CN-107719138-A.
SONG in view of KIM & Khamis teaches a battery module as described in the rejection recited hereinabove, including: crushable insert layers of aluminum foam and aluminum honeycomb layer materials; See SONG at “Description of pictures” section, paragraph 7; and “Specific implementation examples”.
SONG does not teach or suggest: the crushable insert layer is infused with a polymeric material (claim 16); the polymeric material is chosen from silicone, silicone foam, polyurethane, polyurethane foam, EDPM, EDPM foam, rubber, rubber foam, or combinations thereof (claim 17).
CENG teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the crushable insert layer is infused with a polymeric material (fill the honeycomb collision layers with polyurethane foam for buffer function; See “[Description of figures]”, paragraph 16; claim 16); the polymeric material is chosen from silicone, silicone foam, polyurethane, polyurethane foam, EDPM, EDPM foam, rubber, rubber foam, or combinations thereof (fill the honeycomb collision layers with polyurethane foam; See “[Description of figures]”, paragraph 16; claim 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the crushable insert layer being infused with a polymeric material to make a polymer-infused crushable insert layer of polyurethane foam as taught by CENG, in the battery module of SONG in view of KIM & Khamis, in order to provide more buffer function as taught by CENG. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
.
Prosecution Insights