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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed June 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on applicant’s amendments the rejection below has been updated to address the amendments.
Applicant argues that Lee merely discloses a fire extinguishing member located somewhere within a battery module and does not disclose placement specifically at the electrode tab sealing portion.
The argument is not persuasive because the present rejection does not rely on Lee alone to disclose the newly added location limitation. Lee is relied upon for the fire extinguishing member, while Gwon is relied upon for the pouch sealing surface and the electrode tab sealing portion. The rejection is based on the combined teachings of Lee and Gwon.
Applicant argues that the electrode tab sealing portion is uniquely vulnerable because of current concentration, heat generation, gas venting, and structural weakness.
To the extent the electrode tab sealing portion was recognized as a location susceptible to thermal or structural stress, such recognition would have provided additional reason for one of ordinary skill to position Lee’s known fire extinguishing member at that location. Protecting a known or predictable heat-generating location using a known fire suppression member would have constituted a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
Applicant argues that Gwon only teaches a welded sealing structure and does not teach placing a fire extinguishing pad at the sealing structure.
The argument is not persuasive. Gwon is relied upon for identifying the electrode tab sealing portion and its relationship to the sealing surface, while Lee is relied upon for the fire extinguishing member.
Applicant argues that combining Lee and Gwon would require impermissible hindsight.
The argument is not persuasive because the reason for the combination arises from the teachings of the reference and the ordinary knowledge of a person skilled in battery safety design. Lee teaches positioning a fire extinguishing member near battery cells to suppress thermal events. Gwon teaches the location and configuration of the electrode tab sealing portion of a pouch battery. Positioning the fire extinguishing member at a location where a thermal event may predictably originate or propagate would have been a logical and predictable design consideration rather than an impermissible reconstruction based solely on Applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant further argues that adding Lee’s fire extinguishing pad to Gwon would impair the intended function of the references.
This argument is not persuasive because Applicant has not identified evidence demonstrating that positioning the fire extinguishing member at or adjacent to the electrode tab sealing portion would render either Lee’s fire extinguishing member or Gwon’s sealing structure inoperable for its intended purpose. The proposed modification does not require eliminating the sealing function of Gwon or changing the fire suppression function of Lee. Rather, the modification merely positions Lee’s fire extinguishing member at a selected location on or adjacent to the known sealing structure.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention changes the function of the fire extinguishing member rather than merely relocating it.
The argument is not persuasive. The fire extinguishing member continues to perform its known function of suppressing heat or fire. Any improved response associated with positioning the member closed to a potential heat source is an expected result of the placement and does not constitute a new or different function.
Applicant also asserts that the claimed location provides improved cooling and fire suppression at the origin of thermal runaway.
The asserted advantage are not persuasive of nonobviousness. Improved suppression resulting from positioning a fire extinguishing member closer to a source of heat or ignition would have reasonable expected. Applicant has not provided objective evidence establishing that the claimed placement produces unexpected results relative to the closest prior art. Further, the asserted advantages are not shown to be commensurate in scope with the claims, which do not recite particular dimensions, performance thresholds, thermal-response times, or other limitations corresponding to the alleged improvement.
Applicant argues that Tsukamoto does not cure the deficiencies of Lee and that claim 6 is allowable because claim 1 is patentable.
The argument is not persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 is based on Lee in view of Gwon, not Lee alone. Tsukamoto is additionally relied upon for the porosity limitation of claim 6. Applicant has not separately shown that Tsukamoto fails to teach or suggest the claimed porosity limitation.
Applicant argues that Kirk-Othmer does not cure the deficiencies of Lee. The argument is not persuasive because the electrode-tab-sealing-part limitation is supplied by Gwon, while Kirk-Othmer is relied upon for the bromine limitation. Kirk-Othmer teaches the additional extinguishing-agent limitation, the combined teachings render claim 7 unpatentable.
Applicant argues that Choi does not overcome the deficiencies of Lee.
The argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely upon Choi to supply the amended electrode tab sealing limitation. Gwon supplies that limitation, and Choi is relied upon for the additional surface-placement limitation of claim 12. Applicant has not separately established that the additionally limitation distinguishes over Choi.
Applicant argues that Lee does not disclose the claimed arrangement and that claim 13 should therefore be allowable. The argument is not persuasive because the rejection is based on Lee in view of Gwon. Further, Applicant has not shown that the claimed dimensional limitation is critical, produces an unexpected result, or falls outside the range that would have been selected through routine design optimization.
Applicant argues that Morisato does not overcome the deficiencies of Lee.
The argument is not persuasive. The amended electrode-tab-sealing-part limitations is address by the combination of Lee and Gwon, while Morisato is relied upon for the additional fixation limitation of claim 20.
Applicants’ amendment has overcome the previous anticipation rejection to the extent that Lee does not expressly disclose the newly recited placement of the fire extinguishing pad at the electrode tab sealing part. However, the amended claims remain unpatentable under 35 USC 103 because the combination of Lee and Gwon teaches the claimed arrangement. The dependent-claim rejections have been correspondingly modified to depend from the rejection of claim 1 and 16 over Lee in view of Gwon.
Drawings
Objections to Figure 1
Fig. 1 has been amended to include the designation “PRIOR ART,” thereby overcoming the objection. The previous objection to Fig. 1 for failing to identify the figure as prior art is withdrawn.
Objections Regarding Reference Numerals 200/300/500 and 12/120
Applicant argues that the specification has been amended to clarify that reference numerals 200, 300, and 500, as well as reference numerals 12 and 120, identify different components rather than the same component. Upon review of the amended specification and drawings, the objection is withdrawn to the extent that the amended disclosure now clearly and consistently identities the respective components associated with each reference numeral.
Objections Regarding the Separator
Amended Fig. 3 now illustrates the separator. The previous objection concerning the omission of the separator from the drawings is withdrawn.
Specification
Applicant amended paragraph [0082] to remove the improper symbol, thereby overcoming the objection. The previous objection to paragraph [0082] is withdrawn.
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 1-5, 8, 11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 20210093636), hereinafter Lee, in view of Gwon et al. (KR 20150072236), hereinafter Gwon.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a battery cell comprising ([0003], [0038]):
a positive electrode plate (Background art/Description of embodiments; [0003]; [0038]);
one negative electrode plate(Background art/Description of embodiments; [0003]; [0038]);
separator (Background art/Description of embodiments; [0003]; [0038]);
a case accommodating the electrode assembly (Background art/Description of embodiments; [0003]; [0038]);
electrode tab connected to positive or negative protruding out of the case (Description of embodiments; [0046]);
a case that includes a sealing surface fused along circumference of an accommodation space of the electrode assembly (Part 230, 232; [0070]);
battery cell includes a fire extinguishing pad which is provided on an outer surface of the case (Description of embodiments; Fig. 3; [0038]).
Lee does not explicitly teach a fire extinguishing pad on a sealing surface side.
Gwon teaches a fire extinguishing pad on a sealing surface side (Abstract, pouch 50).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fire extinguishing placement of Lee, as informed by Gwon, to position the fire extinguishing pad on the sealing surface where the electrode tab is sealed, as taught by Gwon, in order to localize the fire suppression agent at a critical interface where failure, leakage, or thermal events are most likely to occur. Placing the fire extinguishing pad at the sealing surface would ensure rapid deployment of the extinguishing agent in response to heat or pressure generated by the electrode tab region thereby improving reliability and safety of the battery.
Regarding claim 2, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lee further teaches a fire extinguishing pad (Part 235; [0069]) comprising:
a fire extinguishing agent that vaporizes when overheated and is sprayed out of the fire extinguishing pad (Part 230; [0069]);
a carrier which maintains fire extinguishing pad and supports fire extinguishing pad and supports the fire extinguishing agent on one side (Part 210; [0071]);
a sealing member connected to one side of the carrier to enclose the fire extinguishing agent and seals fire extinguishing agent (Part 210; [0071]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Lee further teaches a carrier (Fig. 4, 5, 6; Part 235; [0069], [0081]) comprising:
a bottom plate (Fig. 4, 5, 6; [0081-0083])
a pillar which is formed to extend to one side of the bottom plate and is disposed in a plurality to be space apart along a surface direction of a bottom plate (Fig. 4, 5, 6; [0081-0083]);
a fire extinguishing agent is between pillar and neighboring pillar (Fig. 4, 5, 6; [0081-0083]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Lee further teaches a carrier (Fig. 4, 5, 6; Part 235; [0069], [0081]) comprising:
A bottom plate which combines sealing member to form fire extinguishing agent space inside (Part 230, 235, 232; extinguishing capsule; [0069]);
A plurality of particles provided in accommodation space where particles are mixed with fire extinguishing agent (Part 230, 235, 232; extinguishing capsule; [0069]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Lee further teaches a carrier (Fig. 4, 5, 6; Part 235; [0069], [0081]) that includes one of the following:
incombustible polymer, semi-incombustible polymer, flame retardant polymer, metal, carbon (Part 235, [0069]).
Regarding claim 8, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Lee further teaches a fire extinguishing agent ([0069]) comprising:
at least one selected from the group consisting of: halogen-based flame retardants, phosphorus-based flame retardants, nitrogen-based flame retardants, inorganic flame retardants, radical scavengers ([0069]).
Regarding claim 11, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lee does not explicitly teach the positioning of the fire extinguishing pad on the sealing surface at the electrode tab. Gwon teaches the fire extinguishing pad located where the electrode tab is sealed on the sealing surface (Abstract, sealing surface 51, pouch 50). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lee, as informed by Gwon, in order to localize fire suppression at a known high-risk region of the battery. Such placement would have predictably improved the effectiveness of the fire extinguishing pad by ensuring deployment of the extinguishing agent directly at the source of a potential thermal event.
Regarding claim 13, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lee teaches a battery module including a fire extinguishing pad disposed relative to battery cells (Part 230, 232; [0070]). Claim 13 further recites that an area of the fire extinguishing pad corresponds to an area of the sealing surface and a thickness of the fire extinguishing pad. Lee does not explicitly disclose the specific relationship between the area of the fire extinguishing pad and the sealing surface as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select an appropriate area and thickness of the fire extinguishing pad corresponding to the sealing surface area. Determining suitable dimensions of the pad would have been a matter of routine optimization of result-effective variable, such as ensuring sufficient coverage of the sealing surface and appropriate fire suppression performance while fitting within the battery module structure. Adjusting the area and thickness of the fire extinguishing pad merely involves changing the size of a known component to obtain predictable results, such as adequate coverage and effective fire suppression. Such dimensional optimization is considered an obvious matter of design choice absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 14, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Lee further teaches fire extinguishing pad (Part 230; [0033], [0086]) comprising:
an adhesive member on the other surface of the carrier (Part 230; [0033], [0043], [0070], [0086]);
a fire extinguishing pad is attached on the outer surface of the case (Part 230; [0033], [0043], [0070], [0086]).
Regarding claim 15, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Lee further teaches fire extinguishing pad (Fig. 4, 5, part 230, 226, 210; [0075]) comprising:
one surface of the carrier is coated with fire extinguishing agent (Fig. 4, 5; Part 230, 226, 210; [0075]);
one surface of the carrier is coated with fire extinguishing agent is coated with the sealing member (Part 232; [0075]).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches a battery pack (Part 110; [0065]) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (Part 110; [0065]) including:
an electrode assembly (Part 110; [0065]) including:
one positive electrode plate (Part 110; [0065]);
one negative electrode plate (Part 110; [0065]);
separator (Part 110; [0065]);
a case accommodating the electrode assembly (Part 210; [0065]);
electrode tab connected to positive or negative protruding out of the case (Part 111a, 111b; [0044-0045]);
case includes a sealing surface fused along a circumference of an accommodation space of the electrode assembly (Part 230, 232; [0070]);
a lower case having a space formed in which a plurality of battery cells is accommodated (Part 240; [0055]);
an upper cover which seals a surface of the case (Part 220; [0055]);
battery cell includes a fire extinguishing pad which is provided on an outer surface of the case (Description of embodiments; Fig. 3; [0038]).
Lee does not explicitly teach a fire extinguishing pad on a sealing surface side.
Gwon teaches a fire extinguishing pad on a sealing surface side (Abstract, pouch 50).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fire extinguishing placement of Lee, as informed by Gwon, to position the fire extinguishing pad on the sealing surface where the electrode tab is sealed, as taught by Gwon, in order to localize the fire suppression agent at a critical interface where failure, leakage, or thermal events are most likely to occur. Placing the fire extinguishing pad at the sealing surface would ensure rapid deployment of the extinguishing agent in response to heat or pressure generated by the electrode tab region thereby improving reliability and safety of the battery.
Regarding claim 17, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 16, as stated above. Lee further teaches a battery cell accommodated in a plurality in the lower case (Part 240, 100, [0056]).
Regarding claim 18, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 17, as stated above. Lee further teaches a fire extinguishing pad on one surface of a sealing surface where electrode tab is sealed on the case respectively (Part 111a, 111b, 230; Figs. 4-5; [0075], [0099-0100]).
Regarding claim 19, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 17, as stated above. Lee further teaches a fire extinguishing pad in a space between the battery cell and the upper cover (Fig. 4, 5, part 230, 226, 210; [0075]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Gwon, as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Tsukamoto (US 8227103 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Lee does not explicitly teach a carrier having a porosity greater than 30%.
Tsukamoto teaches a carrier having a porosity greater than 5% (Summary, [006]) for the absorption of an agent. Tsukamoto demonstrates that increasing porosity enhances the ability of the carrier to absorb the agent.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify the carrier of Lee, as informed by Tsukamoto, to have a porosity greater than 30%, as such a value represents an optimization of a result-effective variable (i.e. porosity) to improve absorption capacity. Increasing porosity beyond 5% to higher values, such as greater than 30% would have been within the routine skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results of enhanced absorption.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20210093636 A) and Gwon, as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (NPL).
Regarding claim 7, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Lee further teach teaches a battery cell comprising:
a fire extinguishing agent (Part 235, [0069]);
a sealing member configured to be broken by vaporization pressure generated by the fire extinguishing agent ([0070]).
Lee further teaches that the fire extinguishing agent may be selected from a variety of agents suitable for fire suppression ([0069]), including halogen-based agents, which generate vapor pressure when heated to rupture the sealing member and release the fire extinguishing agent ([0070]). Bromine is a halogen element, and therefore represents a species within the class of halogen fire extinguishing agents suggested by Lee. Accordingly, Lee suggests the use of bromine as one possible fire extinguishing agent within the disclosed class of materials ([0069]). Lee, however, does not explicitly disclose the specific temperature-dependent phase behavior of bromine recited in claim 7.
The Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology teaches that bromine has a heat of vaporization of approximately 50 °C (Kirk-Othmer, pg. 296) and is liquid at room temperature, remaining in liquid form at temperatures below its boiling point. Kirk-Othmer further teaches that bromine vaporizes when heated, forming a gas and generating vapor pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to select bromine, a halogen, as the fire extinguishing agent in Lee because Lee specifically suggests halogen-based fire extinguishing agents capable of vaporizing to generate pressure that ruptures the sealing member and releases the agent for fire suppression.
Further, because bromine is known to remain liquid at room temperature and transition to a gaseous state when heated to elevated temperatures, the claimed limitation that the fire extinguishing agent remains liquid at room temperature and changes to gas at 30 °C or higher represents an inherent property of bromine as taught by Kirk-Othmer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize bromine as the fire extinguishing agent in Lee with the known phase change properties taught by Kirk-Othmer in order to provide a predictable vaporization behavior that generates pressure to break the sealing member.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Gwon, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Choi (KR 20220013603 A).
Regarding claim 12, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lee does not explicitly teach a fire extinguishing pad located on one surface or both surfaces of the battery cell. Choi teaches the fire extinguishing pad located on one surface or both surface of the battery cell (Claim 7). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lee, as informed by Choi, to position the fire extinguishing pad on one surface or both, in order to increase the amount of distribution of the fire extinguishing agent within the battery. Providing the pad on multiple surfaces would enhance the likelihood that the agent is released near the location of a thermal event, thereby improving fire suppression effectiveness and overall safety.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Gwon, as applied to claim 17 above, in further view of Morisato et al. (US 20190341594 A1), hereinafter Morisato.
Regarding claim 20, Lee and Gwon teach the limitations of claim 17, as stated above. Claim 20 further recites the battery cell fixed by inserting the sealing surface and electrode tab into an internal busbar, with the tab connected to an external busbar. Lee does not explicitly teach how the battery cell is fixed. Morisato teaches that the battery cell fixed by inserting the sealing surface and electrode tab into an internal busbar, with the tab connected to an external busbar (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lee, as informed by Morisato, to include busbars having connection portions joined to the electrode tab to mechanically and electrically secure the battery cell. Joining the busbars to the electrode tab provides a stable electrical connection while also contributing to fixing the cell in place. Applying this known configuration would have yielded predictable improvements in stability and performance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights