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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7-8 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.
In claim 7, line 1, “the signal” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It appears that claim 7 should depend on claim 6.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 15, which is dependent on independent claim 12. Claim 12 includes the entire limitation claimed in claim 17. Thus, claim 17 fails to further limit claim 12 and 15, claims upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by Lorenz et al. (“Lorenz”, US 2022/0285784 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lorenz discloses a battery arrangement for a motor vehicle which enables gases to be discharged from the battery in the event of a thermal runaway of a battery cell ([0006]). Lorenz teaches a degassing device has at least one exhaust gas duct extending outside, which can be a pipe or metal hose or the like ([0013]).
Lorenz teaches a cooling base of a battery, which is usually filled with coolant, in particular water ([0023]). Lorenz also teaches the exhaust gas duct can be filtered, for example, with a particle trap ([0028]), which also cools the gas flow ([0019]).
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gyulai et al. (“Gyulai”, US 2023/0187771 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Lorenz teaches a cooling base of a battery but does not expressly teach the jacket or a radiator or container.
Gyulai is also directed to a battery arrangement (title) which has a cooling wall arrangement (abstract). Gyulai teaches a cooling wall arrangement with a cooling wall which is designed as a cooling plate which can have cooling channels through which a coolant can flow ([0039]).
While Gyulai does not teach the specifics of the source of the cooling fluid, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that coolant must come from a source of cooling fluid and be in contact (jacket, wall, etc.) with the surface which it is cooling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a coolant, such as the one taught by Gyulai, with a surface in contact with the pipe of Lorenz in order to cool the gases.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (“Lee”, US 2022/0278417 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Lorenz does not teach a tank configured to store a battery gas treatment fluid and a dosing device.
Lee discloses a battery pack comprising extinguishment unit (title) and teaches a pipe connected to fire extinguishment tank to supply the fire extinguishing agent (i.e. battery gas treatment fluid) to each of the at least two battery modules, and a valve opened to supply the fire extinguishing agent from the tank to the battery module over the predetermined temperature ([0014]). Lee teaches the fire extinguishing agent is injected into the battery module over the predetermined temperature ([0019],[0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to inject a fire extinguishment agent to effectively extinguish and cool the fire of the battery module at which thermal runaway occurs. The injected fire extinguishing agent would flow into the battery module as well as into the pipe of Lorenz.
As to claim 5, Lorenz teaches a particle trap and a labyrinthine structure ([0019], either of which could be considered a mixing device.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uchida et al. (“Uchida”, US 2019/0288354 A1).
Regarding claims 6-8, Lorenz does not teach a controller or first and second temperature sensor.
However, Uchida is also directed to electric vehicles ([0003]) and teaches a flue gas detection system (title) including a first and second temperature sensor ([0010]). In the flue gas duct, temperature sensor assembly detects a temperature and outputs a detection result (i.e. signal) thereof to ECU (i.e. controller) ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include temperature sensors and a controller in Lorenz to detect thermal runaway and high temperature gas, as taught by Uchida ([0051]). Controllers are configured to instruct or send signals.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz as applied above, and further in view of Han et al. (“Han”, CN218530438U).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Lorenz does not teach a battery gas conversion device with a plurality of treatment zones for chemically treating the flow of gases.
Han is also related to battery thermal runaway ([0005]) and teaches a flue gas treatment device including a connected reaction unit and an adsorption unit ([0007]). The adsorption device is filled with cooling material and/or adsorption material for cooling and/or adsorption treatment of the flue gas after the reaction ([0007]). The gas is converted into a non-combustible gas ([0008]). Han teaches the reaction devices and/or adsorption devices are connected in series through an elbow ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to cool and treat the gas in Lorenz to convert combustible gas to non-combustible gas and increase safety for vehicle passengers.
Claims 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz in view of Lee and Han.
Regarding claim 11, Lorenz as modified by Lee would suggest a tank, battery gas treatment fluid, and dosing device injected into the battery module (and thus the pipe). The battery gas conversion device is suggested by Lorenz modified by Han. These limitations are addressed in the rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, these limitations are addressed in the rejection of claims 12, 4, 5, 9, and 10. The references do not expressly teach a second dosing device. However, adding different or additional connections to already existing components would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz as applied above, and further in view of Han et al. (“Han”, CN218530438U).
Regarding claim 12, Lorenz discloses a battery arrangement for a motor vehicle which enables gases to be discharged from the battery in the event of a thermal runaway of a battery cell ([0006]). Lorenz teaches a degassing device has at least one exhaust gas duct extending outside, which can be a pipe or metal hose or the like ([0013]).
Lorenz teaches a cooling base of a battery, which is usually filled with coolant, in particular water ([0023]). Lorenz also teaches the exhaust gas duct can be filtered, for example, with a particle trap ([0028]), which also cools the gas flow ([0019]).
Lorenz does not teach a battery gas conversion device with a plurality of treatment zones for chemically treating the flow of gases.
Han is also related to battery thermal runaway ([0005]) and teaches a flue gas treatment device including a connected reaction unit and an adsorption unit ([0007]). The adsorption device is filled with cooling material and/or adsorption material for cooling and/or adsorption treatment of the flue gas after the reaction ([0007]). The gas is converted into a non-combustible gas ([0008]). Han teaches the reaction devices and/or adsorption devices are connected in series through an elbow ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to cool and treat the gas in Lorenz to convert combustible gas to non-combustible gas and increase safety for vehicle passengers.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz and Han as applied above, and further in view of Gyulai et al. (“Gyulai”, US 2023/0187771 A1).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Lorenz teaches a cooling base of a battery but does not expressly teach the jacket or a radiator or container.
Gyulai is also directed to a battery arrangement (title) which has a cooling wall arrangement (abstract). Gyulai teaches a cooling wall arrangement with a cooling wall which is designed as a cooling plate which can have cooling channels through which a coolant can flow ([0039]).
While Gyulai does not teach the specifics of the source of the cooling fluid, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that coolant must come from a source of cooling fluid and be in contact (jacket, wall, etc.) with the surface which it is cooling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a coolant, such as the one taught by Gyulai, with a surface in contact with the pipe of Lorenz in order to cool the gases.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz and Han as applied above, and further in view of Uchida et al. (“Uchida”, US 2019/0288354 A1).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Lorenz does not teach a controller or first temperature sensor.
However, Uchida is also directed to electric vehicles ([0003]) and teaches a flue gas detection system (title) including a first and second temperature sensor ([0010]). In the flue gas duct, temperature sensor assembly detects a temperature and outputs a detection result (i.e. signal) thereof to ECU (i.e. controller) ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include temperature sensors and a controller in Lorenz to detect thermal runaway and high temperature gas, as taught by Uchida ([0051]). Controllers are configured to instruct or send signals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746