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 statement (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 07/18/2023 were received and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification received on 07/18/2023 was received and is acceptable.
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(s) 1/11 and 5/15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stein et al (DE102014213916A1, hereinafter Stein).
Regarding claim 1/11, Stein discloses a battery system (Stein, [0012]) with a plurality of battery cells (Stein, [0012]) and a battery system enclosure housing these cells (Stein, [0033]). Stein also discloses a degassing collector deformable by degassing emission in a way where the volume is increased, reading upon the instant claim wording of “bag” (Stein, [0012]). It can be used to capture gases attached to the individual battery cells in the battery system. (Stein, Fig.1a, 20) This collector then expels the captured gases into the environment (Stein, [0036]). Stein discloses this degassing being caused by a fault (Stein, [0012]), with a common fault in the battery arts being a thermal runway event. Stein also discloses the embodiments discloses may be part of an electrically driven vehicle (Stein, [0075]). As commonly known an electrically driven vehicle inherently has a power source such as an electric motor and a battery used to supply this power source with electrical energy.
PNG
media_image1.png
814
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5/15, Stein discloses all of claim 1 as shown above. Stein also discloses a degassing collector with individual entry ports to battery cells through the use of seals (Stein, Fig.4, 30). In some embodiments disclosed by Stein the degassing collector and battery cells can form a gas-tight connection through the use of a latching mechanism (Stein, Fig., 36 and 38) thereby locking the two into place.
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.
Claim(s) 2/12, 3/13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al (DE102014213916A1, hereinafter Stein) in view of Stude et al (US11664546B2, hereinafter Stude).
Regarding claim 2/12, Stein discloses all of claim 1/11 as shown above. However, Stein does not disclose the use of a one-way valve to control the expelling of the gases into the environment. Stude discloses a layered housing for batteries with an outlet further including a one-way valve (Stude, Fig.3, 23 and 25, column 12, lines 31-40). Stude discloses this outlet may be used for gases to escape the housing reducing the risk of explosion (Stude, column 12, lines 31-36). The one-way valve further prevents reintroduction of expelled gases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the degassing collector of Stein with the one-way valve of Stude to prevent overpressure inside of the degassing collector and reduce risk of explosion.
PNG
media_image2.png
561
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3/13, modified Stein discloses all of claim 2/12 as shown above. However modified Stein does not disclose a battery system including and enclosure tray and enclosure cover with a valve attached to either of them. Stude discloses a lower housing and a housing lid (Stude, Fig.3, 10 and 11) the housing lid also includes a valve structure inside it (Stude, Fig.3, 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the battery system of modified Stein with the lower housing and housing lid of Stude to allow easier access to the battery cells held inside the system.
Regarding claim 20, modified Stein discloses a battery system (Stein, [0012]) with a plurality of battery cells (Stein, [0012]) and a battery module housing these cells (Stein, Fig.1a, 12). Stein also discloses a degassing collector used to capture gases attached to the individual battery cells in the battery system. (Stein, Fig.1a, 20) This collector then expels the captured gases into the environment (Stein, [0036]). Stein also discloses the embodiments discloses may be part of an electrically driven vehicle (Stein, [0075]). As commonly known an electrically driven vehicle inherently has a power source such as aa electric motor and a battery used to supply this power source with electrical energy. Modified Stein also discloses a layered housing for batteries with an outlet further including a one-way valve (Stude, Fig.3, 23 and 25) and a lower housing and a housing lid (Stude, Fig.3, 10 and 11) the housing lid also includes a valve structure inside it (Stude, Fig.3, 25).
Claim(s) 4/14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al (DE102014213916A1, hereinafter Stein) in view of Stude et al (US11664546B2, hereinafter Stude) as applied to claim 3/13 above, and further in view of Kullberg (US20230261314A1).
Regarding claim 4/14, modified Stein discloses all of claim 3/13 as shown above. However, it does not disclose a collection bag arranged between an enclosure cover and the battery cells. Kullberg discloses an embodiment of a battery device comprising a flame-retardant encapsulant wherein the encapsulant is located within the casing and place around the battery cells to isolate them from the casing (Kullberg, [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the battery system of modified Stein with the encapsulant of Kullberg to further insulate the battery cell from the environment and to only allow gases to escape through designated valves.
Claim(s) 6/16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al (DE102014213916A1, hereinafter Stein) in view of Skroski et al (US20230207952A1, hereinafter Skroski).
Regarding claim 6/16, Stein discloses all of claim 1 as shown above. However, Stein does not disclose the lining of the connections between the battery cells and degassing collector with mica. Skroski discloses a venting seal which may be comprised of a plurality of mica layers (Skroski, [0016]). These mica layers may be used to insulate the battery cells further.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the valve of Stein with the venting seal made of mica of Skroski to further insulate the battery cell and protect the battery system in case of thermal runaway.
Claim(s) 7/17 and 8/18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al (DE102014213916A1, hereinafter Stein) in view of Kullberg (US20230261314A1) and in further view of Shen et al (CN101406780B, hereinafter Shen).
Regarding claim 7/17, Stein discloses all of claim 1/11 as shown above. However, Stein does not disclose the degassing collector being made from a flexible, temperature-resistant material with stitching. Stein does disclose individual flow paths from each battery cell (Stein, Fig.2b and Fig.2a, 22 and 22’). Kullberg discloses a flame-retardant encapsulant that may comprise a high-temperature resistant fabric (Kullberg, [0027]). Shen discloses a filter bag used to trap dust (debris) constructed from a fabric by stitching (Shen, [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the battery system with individual flow paths of Stein with the fabric encapsulation of Kullberg and with the stitching of Shen to allow greater deformation to accommodate gasses.
PNG
media_image3.png
821
359
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8/18, Modified Stein discloses all of claim 7/17 as shown above. Modified Stein also discloses projections inside the degassing collector (Stein, Fig.8, highlighted).
PNG
media_image4.png
390
474
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al (DE102014213916A1, hereinafter Stein) in view of Kullberg (US20230261314A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ashida et al (US20220396682A1, hereinafter Ashida) and Stude et al (US11664546B2, hereinafter Stude).
Regarding claim 9, modified Stein discloses all of claim 7 as shown above. However, modified Stein does not disclose the degassing collector being constructed from either black slag or vermiculite, only that it might be a temperature-resistant material. Stude discloses a fiber layer used for its temperature resistant properties for use in a battery encapsulation, particularly silicate fibers (Stude, Column 3, Lines 63-64 and Column 4, Line 2). Ashida discloses the use of layered silicates in the battery arts particularly vermiculite (Ashida, [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to take the battery system with flexible fabric degassing collector of modified Stein and include a temperature resistant fiber as described by Stude while using the vermiculite of Ashida to further increase the temperature resistance of the degassing collector.
Claim(s) 10/19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al (DE102014213916A1, hereinafter Stein) in view of De Brouwer et al (US20230158979A1, hereinafter De Brouwer).
Regarding claim 10/19, Stein discloses all of claim 1/11 as shown above. However, Stein does not disclose the degassing collector having a bellows structure configured to expand under pressure. De Brouwer discloses a bellows structure configured to inflated under overpressure generated in a battery block used to dampening the overpressure amplitude allowing for less damage to the battery system (De Brouwer, [0049], Fig.4, 306).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to take the battery system with degassing collector of Stein and include a bellows structure as described in De Brouwer to further reduce the damaging effects of an overpressure event in the battery system.
PNG
media_image5.png
292
430
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights