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 statement (IDS) submitted on 20 February 2025 and 25 February 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6which is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required, possibly by removing one of the two articles.
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 1-5, 8-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0120384 (Tyler et al., hereinafter, Tyler).
Regarding claim 1, Tyler teaches:
A safety vent assembly for a cylindrical battery (Tyler ¶ 8, device for aiding in the fracture of a vent of an electrochemical cell), comprising:
a burst disk configured to open and at least partially define a vent in response to a thermal runaway of the battery (Tyler ¶ 56 vent 52 is configured to allow gases and/or effluent to exit the cell 24 once the pressure inside the cell reaches a predetermined amount; ¶58 the vent 52 includes at least one annular or circular groove…the vent 52 is configured to break away (i.e., separate) from the bottom 29 of the housing 26 at the groove 53 when the vent 52 deploys).
a current collector (Tyler ¶ 21 current collector); and
a positive terminal (Tyler ¶ 53 positive terminal),
wherein a turbulence promoter is defined on the current collector (Tyler ¶ 72 the pushing ring 120 fits over and around the positive current collector) (While the turbulence promoter (pushing ring with plurality of lobes) is not defined on the current collector, Tyler teaches that coupled or connected parts may be integrally formed as a single body (Tyler ¶ 111), and the court has also held that "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." See MPEP 2144.04),
wherein gas from inside the battery passes through the turbulence promoter and vent formed by the burst disk during the thermal runaway (Tyler ¶ 8 The open space provided between adjacent lobes is configured to allow gases from inside the electrochemical cell to pass through during deployment of the vent.).
Regarding claim 2, Tyler teaches the safety vent assembly of claim 1, wherein the turbulence promoter comprises a hole defined by a plurality of lobes (Tyler ¶ 82 the pushing ring 220 includes a plurality of lobes 222…the lobes are provided adjacent to an aperture or opening 234.)
Regarding claim 3, Tyler teaches the safety vent assembly of claim 1, wherein the turbulence promoters are positioned adjacent to the vent formed during thermal runaway (Tyler ¶ 8 Each of the plurality of lobes are configured to make contact with the vent during deployment of the vent)
Regarding claim 4, Tyler teaches the safety vent assembly of claim 1, and the positive terminal and turbulence promotor, but does not teach a second turbulence promotor on the positive terminal. However, it would be obvious to add a second turbulence promotor (pushing ring) and make it integral (see above rejection for claim 1) with the positive terminal, and the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 5, Tyler teaches the safety vent assembly of claim 4, but does not explicitly teach the plurality of extrusions (plurality of lobes) of the second turbulence promotor are adjacent to the vent formed during thermal runaway since the positive terminal and negative terminal are located next to each other on the opposite side of the battery than the side with the vent. However, Tyler teaches that the embodiments are only exemplary and that those skilled in the art will appreciate that many modifications are possible (Tyler ¶ 113), and that it would be obvious to move the positive terminal from one side of the battery to the other side to be located next to the vent to reflect a more conventional cylindrical battery, thus placing the plurality of extrusions (plurality of lobes) adjacent to the vent formed during thermal runaway and release of gas.
Regarding claim 8, Tyler teaches:
A cylindrical battery (Tyler ¶ 50 electrochemical cell…having a generally cylindrical main body) comprising:
a safety valve assembly positioned on the positive end of the terminal (Tyler ¶ 8, device for aiding in the fracture of a vent of an electrochemical cell), the safety valve assembly comprising:
a burst disk configured to open and at least partially define a vent in response to a thermal runaway of the battery (Tyler ¶ 56 vent 52 is configured to allow gases and/or effluent to exit the cell 24 once the pressure inside the cell reaches a predetermined amount; ¶58 the vent 52 includes at least one annular or circular groove…the vent 52 is configured to break away (i.e., separate) from the bottom 29 of the housing 26 at the groove 53 when the vent 52 deploys);
a current collector (Tyler ¶ 21 current collector); and
a positive terminal (Tyler ¶ 53 positive terminal),
wherein a turbulence promoter is defined on the current collector (Tyler ¶ 72 the pushing ring 120 fits over and around the positive current collector) (While the turbulence promoter (pushing ring with plurality of lobes) is not defined on the current collector, Tyler teaches that coupled or connected parts may be integrally formed as a single body (Tyler ¶ 111), and the court has also held that "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." See MPEP 2144.04),
wherein gas from inside the battery passes through the turbulence promoter and the vent formed by the burst disk during the thermal runaway (Tyler ¶ 8 The open space provided between adjacent lobes is configured to allow gases from inside the electrochemical cell to pass through during deployment of the vent.).
Regarding claim 9, Tyler teaches the cylindrical battery of claim 8, wherein the turbulence promoter comprises a hole defined by a plurality of lobes (Tyler ¶ 82 the pushing ring 220 includes a plurality of lobes 222…the lobes are provided adjacent to an aperture or opening 234.)
Regarding claim 10, Tyler teaches the cylindrical battery of claim 8, wherein the turbulence promoters are positioned adjacent to the vent formed during thermal runaway (Tyler ¶ 8 Each of the plurality of lobes are configured to make contact with the vent during deployment of the vent)
Regarding claim 11, Tyler teaches the cylindrical battery of claim 8, and the positive terminal and turbulence promotor, but does not teach a second turbulence promotor on the positive terminal. However, it would be obvious to add a second turbulence promotor (pushing ring) and make it integral (see above rejection for claim 8) with the positive terminal, and the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 12, Tyler teaches the cylindrical battery of claim 11, but does not explicitly teach the plurality of extrusions (plurality of lobes) of the second turbulence promotor are adjacent to the vent formed during thermal runaway since the positive terminal and negative terminal are located next to each other on the opposite side of the battery than the side with the vent. However, Tyler teaches that the embodiments are only exemplary and that those skilled in the art will appreciate that many modifications are possible (Tyler ¶ 113), and that it would be obvious to move the positive terminal from one side of the battery to the other side to be located next to the vent to reflect a more conventional cylindrical battery, thus placing the plurality of extrusions (plurality of lobes) adjacent to the vent formed during thermal runaway and release of gas.
Regarding claim 15, Tyler teaches:
A battery pack (Tyler ¶ 29, battery system), comprising:
a cylindrical battery (Tyler ¶ 50 electrochemical cell…having a generally cylindrical main body) comprising a safety valve assembly positioned on the positive end of the terminal (Tyler ¶ 8, device for aiding in the fracture of a vent of an electrochemical cell), the safety valve assembly comprising:
a burst disk configured to open and at least partially define a vent in response to a thermal runaway of the cylindrical battery (Tyler ¶ 56 vent 52 is configured to allow gases and/or effluent to exit the cell 24 once the pressure inside the cell reaches a predetermined amount; ¶58 the vent 52 includes at least one annular or circular groove…the vent 52 is configured to break away (i.e., separate) from the bottom 29 of the housing 26 at the groove 53 when the vent 52 deploys;
a turbulence promoter defined by the a current collector, a positive terminal, or a combination thereof (Tyler ¶ 72 the pushing ring 120 fits over and around the positive current collector) (While the turbulence promoter (pushing ring with plurality of lobes) is not defined on the current collector, Tyler teaches that coupled or connected parts may be integrally formed as a single body (Tyler ¶ 111), and the court has also held that "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." See MPEP 2144.04),
wherein hot gas from inside the battery passes through the turbulence promoter and the vent formed in the burst disk during the thermal runaway (Tyler ¶ 8 The open space provided between adjacent lobes is configured to allow gases from inside the electrochemical cell to pass through during deployment of the vent.).
Claims 6-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0120384 (Tyler) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0052264 (Ashbolt et al., hereinafter, Ashbolt).
Regarding claim 6 and 7, Tyler teaches the safety vent assembly of claim 1, but does not teach that the positive terminal includes a beam that extends across a diameter of the safety vent assembly, wherein the burst disk is configured to at least partially bend around the beam in response to the thermal runaway and define the vent. In a similar field of endeavor, Ashbolt teaches a cylindrical battery with a positive terminal including lines of weakness that are structured to form an opening to vent gas when a threshold pressure is reached (Ashbolt Abstract). The tabs 1002 are bent upwards and around the beam that extends across a diameter (transverse axis 306) of the second cover 110 (Ashbolt Fig. 11, ¶ 59, Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Tyler teaches the cylindrical battery of claim 8, but does not teach that the positive terminal includes a beam that extends across a diameter of the safety vent assembly, wherein the burst disk is configured to at least partially bend around the beam in response to the thermal runaway and define the vent. In a similar field of endeavor, Ashbolt teaches a cylindrical battery with a positive terminal including lines of weakness that are structured to form an opening to vent gas when a threshold pressure is reached (Ashbolt Abstract). The tabs 1002 are bent upwards and around the beam that extends across a diameter (transverse axis 306) of the second cover 110 (Ashbolt Fig. 11, ¶ 59, Fig. 3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the vent from the safety vent assembly of Tyler with the second cover of Ashbolt with a reasonable expectation of success and a predictable result, as both vents would allow built up gas to escape from the battery (Ashbolt Abstract).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0120384 (Tyler) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0227708 (Ahn et al., hereinafter, Ahn).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Tyler teaches the battery pack of claim 15, and a casing having cylindrical batteries disposed therein, but does not teach that the casing has a hole wherein cool gas from outside the battery passes through the hole of the casing and dilutes the hot gas released from the safety valve assembly of the battery, or wherein the hole of the casing is positioned on the side of the casing proximate to the safety vent of the battery. In a similar field of endeavor, Ahn teaches a battery module with an upper case and lower case and a space to accommodate cylindrical battery cells, and a gas discharge path extending in front, back, left, and right directions to externally discharge a gas discharged from the cylindrical battery cells and where an open portion externally exposed is formed, and a gas discharge hole opened such that the gas discharge path is connected to the outside (Ahn Abstract). Thus, any gas released from the batteries are directly diluted with the air from the outside, and the battery vents and holes in the casing are proximate.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the battery pack of Tyler with the gas discharge path and hole of Ahn to quickly discharge any gas formed and released by the battery cells, reducing the risk of secondary explosion (Ahn ¶ 105).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/M.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights