DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination, wherein claim 15 is withdrawn.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
The election requirement of Species Set A is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments to claims 8-14.
Applicant’s election of B.2 in the reply filed on July 23, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 19 are severably objected to because the claims each claim a “disclosure” (emphasis added) instead of the presumed “enclosure.” Appropriate correction is respectfully required.
Claim 8 is objected to because the claim ends with “to preferentially” in “the trapper material further comprises hydrophobic zeolite to preferentially.” Appropriate correction is respectfully required.
Claim 17 is objected to because the claim repeats “that” in “a trapper material disposed in the enclosure that that absorbs the at least one volatile flammable electrolyte component” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is respectfully required.
Claim 17 is objected to because the claim spells “battery” as “batter” in “batter cells” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is respectfully required.
Claim 17 is objected to because the claim includes a period punctuation within the claim “from the batter cells. disposed inside the enclosure of the battery pack” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is respectfully required.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16 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.
Regarding independent claim 1, from which claims 2-14 and 16 depend, the preamble limitation “the type” (emphasis added) is not clear as to what is intended, such as whether—not not—it is intended to further limit the scope of the claim.
For purposes of examination, it is interpreted as provided below.
Independent claim 1, from which the other claims depend, recites in the preamble “the type” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the parenthetical “(greater than about 40 m2/g)” is not clear as to whether or not it is intended as required, such as to further modify “high” in “high (greater than about 40 m2/g) specific surface area.”
For purposes of examination, it is interpreted as provided below.
Regarding claim 14, the parenthetical “(>40 m2/g)” is not clear as to whether or not it is intended to further as required, such as modify “high surface area” in “high surface area (>40 m2/g) carbon-based adsorbent.”
For purposes of examination, it is interpreted as provided below.
Regarding claim 14, the parenthetical “(graphitized carbon, carbon molecular sieves or activated carbon)” is not clear as to whether or not it is intended as required, such as to further modify “carbon-based adsorbent (graphitized carbon, carbon molecular sieves or activated carbon).”
For purposes of examination, it is interpreted as provided below.
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, 3-4, 6-7, 12-13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al (KR 2016/0004247).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yoon teaches a battery pack (e.g. item 400) with improved safety, said battery pack is formed on outer surfaces of multiple adjacent stacked battery modules (e.g. items 200) incorporated within said battery pack, wherein each battery module comprising lithium secondary batteries, such as an illustrated e.g. 7 lithium secondary batteries, wherein said lithium secondary batteries include an electrolyte that—under abnormal behavior—may vaporize to form a ignitable gas; and,
said battery pack further comprising a gas adsorption sheet (e.g. item 300) located so that it is (i) interposed between multiple lithium secondary batteries; or, (ii) formed on said a surface—such as a top, bottom, or side—of said lithium secondary battery modules, so that said gas adsorption sheet may be between at least one of said stacked lithium secondary battery modules and an inner side of said battery pack,
said gas adsorption sheet providing said improved safety by being situated at an exterior to said batteries for “absorbing gas flowing out of the lithium secondary battery due to the vaporization of the electrolyte;”
wherein said gas adsorption sheet is expressly taught to absorb said ignitable gas from said secondary battery, which may suppress ignition, temperature rise, and ignition, thereby improving safety of said batteries; and,
said gas adsorption sheet comprising a polyolefin-based polymer resin, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and copolymers thereof; plus, said resin and a gas adsorbent in a weight ratio of 20:80 to 80:20, wherein said gas adsorbent may be particles of silica gel, bentonite, or a mixture thereof with an average particle size of 0.8 to 20 μm and with a BET specific surface area of 1 to 50 m2/g, noting such high (“vast”) surface area is taught to affect the adsorption capacity
(e.g. ¶¶ 0008-11, 13-18, 21-24, 28, 31, and 33-37, plus e.g. Figures 1-5), reading on “improved battery pack of the type comprising:
(1) said battery pack comprising said multiple adjacent stacked battery modules incorporated therein, wherein each battery module comprising said lithium secondary batteries, such as said illustrated e.g. 7 lithium secondary batteries, wherein said lithium secondary batteries include said electrolyte that—under abnormal behavior—may vaporize to form said ignitable gas (e.g. supra), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “an enclosure containing a plurality of battery cells having a flammable volatile electrolyte component,”
said battery pack further comprising said gas adsorption sheet (e.g. item 300) located so that it is (i) interposed between multiple lithium secondary batteries; or, (ii) formed on said surface—such as said top, bottom, or side—of said lithium secondary battery modules, so that said gas adsorption sheet may be between at least one of said stacked lithium secondary battery modules and said inner side of said battery pack;
said gas adsorption sheet providing said improved safety by being situated at said exterior to said batteries for “absorbing gas flowing out of the lithium secondary battery due to the vaporization of the electrolyte;”
wherein said gas adsorption sheet is expressly taught to absorb said ignitable gas from said secondary battery, which may suppress ignition, temperature rise, and ignition, thereby improving safety of said batteries; and,
wherein said gas adsorption sheet comprising said polyolefin-based polymer resin, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and copolymers thereof; plus, said resin and said gas adsorbent in said weight ratio of 20:80 to 80:20, wherein said gas adsorbent may be particles of silica gel, bentonite, or said mixture thereof with said average particle size of 0.8 to 20 μm and with said BET specific surface area of 1 to 50 m2/g
(e.g. supra), noting while the presence of said electrolyte, which is vaporized and forms ignitable gas, exterior to (“flowing out”) said batteries is not a normal condition in the art, the art expressly recognizes the “abnormal behavior” of such an event, for which incorporation of the taught said gas adsorption sheet provides improved safety, the recognized condition of said abnormal behavior of said gas adsorption sheet and said gas adsorbent therein being present to “absorb” said gas reads on “the improvement comprising a trapper material that absorbs the volatile flammable electrolyte component disposed inside the enclosure of the battery pack,” as claimed.
Regarding claims 3-4, Yoon teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein said battery pack is formed on outer surfaces of multiple adjacent stacked battery modules (e.g. items 200) incorporated within said battery pack, wherein said battery pack comprises said gas adsorption sheet (e.g. item 300) located so that it is (ii) formed on said top and bottom surfaces of each of said multiple adjacent stacked battery modules, so that said gas adsorption sheet may be between at least one of said stacked battery modules and a bottom side of said battery pack, wherein each battery module comprises said lithium secondary batteries, such as said illustrated e.g. 7 lithium secondary batteries (e.g. supra), reading on “the trapper material is disposed in a layer in the bottom of the disclosure, under the plurality of battery cells” (claim 3), wherein said gas adsorption sheet formed on said outer surfaces—such as said top and bottom surfaces—of said battery modules is in spaces of said pack in which said lithium ion secondary batteries are not located, reading on “the trapper material is disposed in spaces in the enclosure not occupied by battery cells” claim 4).
Regarding claims 6-7, Yoon teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein said gas adsorption sheet comprising said polyolefin-based polymer resin, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and copolymers thereof; plus, said resin and said gas adsorbent in said weight ratio of 20:80 to 80:20, wherein said gas adsorbent may be particles of silica gel, bentonite, or said mixture thereof with said average particle size of 0.8 to 20 μm and with said BET specific surface area of 1 to 50 m2/g (e.g. supra), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “high surface area greater than about 40 m2/g, … polyolefin film” (claim 6); and, “the polyolefin film is polyethylene or polypropylene” (claim 7).
Still regarding claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, Yoon teaches gas adsorption sheet comprising said gas adsorbent, which may be particles of silica gel, bentonite, or said mixture thereof (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach said gas adsorbent has the claimed property of being “hydrophobic.”
However, Yoon teaches a substantially identical composition (e.g. supra, compared with instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0008 and 24), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed property, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01.
Still regarding claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, Yoon teaches said gas adsorption sheet but does not expressly teach the limitation “thin” polyolefin film “less than about 5 mm thick.”
However, differences in size/proportion do not patentably distinguish the instant invention in the absence of persuasive evidence of its importance, see e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), see also instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0008 and 24.
Regarding claims 12-13, Yoon teaches the battery pack of claim 7, wherein said gas adsorption sheet comprising said gas adsorbent, which may be particles of silica gel, bentonite, or said mixture thereof (e.g. supra), reading on “the trapper material further comprises clay” (claim 12) and “the clay comprises at least one of montmorillonite and bentonite” (claim 13).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Yoon is applied as provided supra, with the following modifications,
Still regarding independent claim 17, Yoon teaches said battery pack (e.g. item 400) with improved safety, said battery pack comprising said multiple adjacent stacked battery modules (e.g. items 200), wherein each battery module comprising said lithium secondary batteries, such as said illustrated e.g. 7 lithium secondary batteries, wherein said lithium secondary batteries include therein said electrolyte that—under abnormal behavior—may vaporize to form said ignitable gas; and, said gas adsorption sheet providing said improved safety by being situated at said exterior to said batteries for “absorbing gas flowing out of the lithium secondary battery due to the vaporization of the electrolyte” (e.g. supra), establishing a prima facie case of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “a plurality of battery cells having at least one flammable volatile electrolyte component;” and, establishing a prima facie case of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I); and, noting while the presence of said electrolyte, which is vaporized and forms ignitable gas, exterior to (“flowing out”) said batteries is not a normal condition in the art, the art expressly recognizes the “abnormal behavior” of such an event, for which incorporation of the taught said gas adsorption sheet provides improved safety, the recognized condition of said abnormal behavior of said gas adsorption sheet and said gas adsorbent therein being present to “absorb” said gas reads on “a trapper material disposed in the enclosure that that absorbs the at least one volatile flammable electrolyte component from the batter cells. Disposed inside the enclosure of the battery pack,” as claimed,
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al (KR 2016/0004247) in view of Birke et al (DE 102008025422, published 2009).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Yoon teaches the battery pack of claims 1 and 17, wherein said battery pack comprising said multiple adjacent stacked battery modules (e.g. items 200), wherein each battery module comprising said lithium secondary batteries, such as said illustrated e.g. 7 lithium secondary batteries, further said gas adsorption sheet (e.g. item 300) located so that it is (i) interposed between multiple lithium secondary batteries, said gas adsorption sheet comprising said polyolefin-based polymer resin, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and copolymers thereof; and, said gas adsorbent (e.g. supra, for illustrative purposes, see e.. Figure 2), establishing a prima facie case of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), wherein each module is understood to be identical to the others; alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design each module to be identical to one another in order to minimize manufacturing complexity, reading on “the battery cells are arranged in a plurality of modules, and wherein the trapper material is disposed in … separators between the cells in each module” (claims 2 and 18), but does not expressly teach said gas adsorption sheet is “foam.”
However, Birke teaches an energy storage unit that may include lithium-ion cells with an electrolyte that may—in an unlikely scenario—leak, plus a precaution against said unlikely leak, said precaution including providing an absorbent mass with high surface area outside of said lithium-ion cells, such as a sponge (e.g. ¶¶ 0007-14 plus e.g. Figure).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to shape the gas adsorption sheet of Yoon, which is interposed between multiple lithium secondary batteries as the sponge as taught by Birke, since Birke teaches an adsorbent mass with high surface area located outside of lithium-ion cells, in the form of a sponge helps mitigate an event where electrolyte leaks out of said cells.
The examiner appreciates that the gas adsorption sheet of Yoon is for adsorbing a gas phase, not necessarily a liquid phase. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that a sponge may additionally hold any leaked electrolyte therein, which may additionally help said gas absorbent contact electrolyte transforming from liquid phase to gas phase.
Yoon as modified reading on “the battery cells are arranged in a plurality of modules, and wherein the trapper material is disposed in foam separators between the cells in each module” (claims 2 and 18).
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al (KR 2016/0004247) in view of Taniguchi et al (US 2023/0318062).
Yoon teaches the battery pack of claims 1 and 17, wherein said battery pack with improved safety, said battery pack is formed on outer surfaces of multiple adjacent stacked battery modules (e.g. items 200) incorporated within said battery pack, wherein each battery module comprising lithium secondary batteries, such as said illustrated e.g. 7 lithium secondary batteries, wherein said lithium secondary batteries include said electrolyte that—under abnormal behavior—may vaporize to form said ignitable gas; and further, said gas adsorption sheet (e.g. item 300), wherein said gas adsorption sheet is expressly taught to absorb said ignitable gas from said secondary battery, which may suppress ignition, temperature rise, and ignition, thereby improving safety of said batteries,
wherein said gas adsorption sheet comprising said polyolefin-based polymer resin, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and copolymers thereof; plus, said resin and said gas adsorbent in said weight ratio of 20:80 to 80:20, wherein said gas adsorbent may be particles of silica gel, bentonite, or said mixture thereof with said average particle size of 0.8 to 20 μm and with said BET specific surface area of 1 to 50 m2/g, as provided supra,
but does not expressly teach the limitation “the trapper material is disposed in a trapper bed in a replaceable module that circulates atmosphere inside the enclosure through the trapper bed.
However, Taniguchi teaches a hydrogen sulfide absorbing device for use with a battery pack (e.g. item 1) comprising a plurality of secondary battery cells (e.g. items 1a) with electrolyte that may produce hydrogen sulfide gas,
said hydrogen absorbing device including piping between said battery pack and a hydrogen sulfide absorbing part (e.g. item 2), an air blower fan (e.g. item 3a) for circulating gas from said battery pack to a body of a hydrogen sulfide absorber (e.g. item 2a) within said hydrogen sulfide absorbing part,
said hydrogen sulfide absorbing part (e.g. item 2) including a hydrogen absorber case (e.g. item 2b) filled by said body of said hydrogen sulfide absorber (e.g. item 2a), which may be composed of e.g. activated carbon, zeolite, and silica gel,
said device providing an improved energy efficiency in removing hydrogen sulfide gas from a battery pack and further teaches when said hydrogen sulfide absorber is a powder in said case compared to e.g. in the form of a sheet, then a volume of said adsorber in contact with gas is larger, thereby increasing amount of gas which can be absorbed
(e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 07, 51-57, and 120-126 plus e.g. Figures 1-4B).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further incorporate the gas absorbing device of Taniguchi with the battery pack of Yoon, since Taniguchi teaches said gas absorbing device results in a volume of adsorber in contact with gas being larger than is capable in e.g. a sheet, thereby increasing amount of gas which can be absorbed.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the gas adsorbent of Yoon in the gas absorbing device of Taniguchi, since the gas adsorbent of Yoon is used to control the gas flowing out of the Yoon batteries.
Furthermore, the absorbing part (e.g. item 2) of the Taniguchi gas absorbing device is not expressly “replaceable.” However, it is a separate component from the battery pack, and as a result is capable of being “replaced.”
Yoon as modified reading on “the trapper material is disposed in a trapper bed in a replaceable module that circulates atmosphere inside the enclosure through the trapper bed” (claims 5 and 20).
Claims 8, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al (KR 2016/0004247) in view of Hatta et al (JP 2008/146963).
Regarding claims 8, 14, and 16, Yoon teaches the battery pack of claims 7 and 1, wherein said gas adsorption sheet comprising said polyolefin-based polymer resin, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and copolymers thereof; plus, said resin and said gas adsorbent in said weight ratio of 20:80 to 80:20, wherein said gas adsorbent may be particles of silica gel, bentonite, or said mixture thereof with said average particle size of 0.8 to 20 μm and with said BET specific surface area of 1 to 50 m2/g (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach said gas adsorbent further comprises the limitation “the trapper material further comprises high surface area (>40 m2/g) carbon-based adsorbent (graphitized carbon, carbon molecular sieves or activated carbon)” (claim 14, emphasis added) and “the batteries are Graphite/NCMA (nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum) cells with an electrolyte comprising ethylene carbonate (EC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), and LiPF6” (claim 16).
However, Hatta teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte lithium-ion secondary battery with improved cycle characteristics,
said battery comprising a negative electrode material that is preferably graphite; a positive electrode material that may be e.g. LirCo(1-s)M3sO(2-t), wherein M3 may be Mn and Al plus 0.8 ≤ r ≤ 1.2, 0 ≤ s < 0.5, -0.1 ≤ t ≤ 0.2; a separator; and, a non-aqueous electrolyte that may be composed of ethylene carbonate, ethylmethyl carbonate, and preferably a LiPF6 salt; and,
said battery further including a gas adsorbent within said separator, said gas adsorbent may be e.g. silica gel, zeolite, activated carbon, and activated alumina,
said gas absorbents preferably have a particle size of 0.1 μm-2.0 μm or less, which results in an increase of total surface area, thereby increasing gas absorption capacity (e.g. ¶¶ 0009-11, 22-25, 32-35, 44-50, and 56).
Still regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the battery of Hatta for the battery of Yoon, since Hatta teaches its battery has an improved cycle characteristics, said substituted battery of Hatta comprising said non-aqueous electrolyte that may be composed of ethylene carbonate, ethylmethyl carbonate, and preferably said LiPF6 salt.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a portion of the silica gel composition of Yoon with the zeolite composition of Hatta, since Hatta teaches they are equivalent gas adsorbents, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.06.
Finally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the zeolite gas adsorbent of Yoon as modified so that it is “hydrophobic,” since the gas that is being adsorbed results from said non-aqueous electrolyte (composed of said ethylene carbonate and ethylmethyl carbonate), so said zeolite should be further treated to adsorb a non-aqueous electrolyte (i.e. hydrophobic), reading on “the trapper material further comprises hydrophobic zeolite to preferentially” (claim 8).
Still regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a portion of the silica gel composition of Yoon with the activated carbon composition of Hatta, since Hatta teaches they are equivalent gas adsorbents, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.06, noting the Yoon gas adsorbent particles have the taught BET specific surface area of 1 to 50 m2/g (e.g. supra), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, reading on “the trapper material further comprises high surface area (>40 m2/g) carbon-based adsorbent (graphitized carbon, carbon molecular sieves or activated carbon)” (claim 14); alternatively, said activated carbon particles are substantially identical compositions to the claimed invention (see supra, compared with the instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0008 and 24), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed specific surface area.
Still regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the battery of Hatta for the battery of Yoon, since Hatta teaches its battery has an improved cycle characteristics, said substituted battery of Hatta comprising said negative electrode material that is preferably graphite; said positive electrode material that may be e.g. LirCo(1-s)M3sO(2-t), wherein M3 may be Mn and Al plus 0.8 ≤ r ≤ 1.2, 0 ≤ s < 0.5, -0.1 ≤ t ≤ 0.2; said separator; and, said non-aqueous electrolyte that may be composed of ethylene carbonate, ethylmethyl carbonate, and preferably said LiPF6 salt, reading on “the batteries are Graphite/NCMA (nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum) cells with an electrolyte comprising ethylene carbonate (EC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), and LiPF6” (claim 16).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al (KR 2016/0004247) in view of Dahlgren et al (US 2004/0151966).
Yoon teaches the battery pack of claim 7, wherein said gas adsorption sheet comprising said polyolefin-based polymer resin, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and copolymers thereof; plus, said resin and said gas adsorbent in said weight ratio of 20:80 to 80:20, wherein said gas adsorbent may be particles of silica gel, bentonite, or said mixture thereof with said average particle size of 0.8 to 20 μm and with said BET specific surface area of 1 to 50 m2/g (e.g. supra), said taught particles of bentonite reading on the “trapper material” of claim 1 and said taught particles of silica gel reading on “the trapper material further comprises silica gel” of the instant claim 9, but does not expressly teach said gas adsorbent further comprises the limitation “the trapper material further comprises … activated alumina with high (greater than about 40 m2/g) specific surface area and decorated with hydrophobic functional groups.”
However, Dahlgren teaches a “fuel cell is similar to a battery” and further teaches “Examples of equipment suitable for operation by small or portable fuel cell 30 include … electronic equipment that has traditionally been powered by batteries,” wherein the fuel cell (e.g. item 30) includes a filter assembly (e.g. item 100) to/from a cathode of said fuel cell and a filter assembly (e.g. item 200) to/from an anode of said fuel cell, said filter assembly inhibits passage of gaseous chemical contaminants, such as hydrocarbons (VOCs), acid gases (e.g., SO2, H2S, Cl2, NOx) and base gases (e.g., ammonia),
wherein said assemblies may include a membrane for particulate filtration and a gas adsorbent material (e.g. item 114) for chemical filtration, said gas absorbent material may be activated carbon, activated alumina, molecular sieves, ion exchange resins or other functional resins and polymers, diatomaceous earths, silica gel, or clays; and, may include a coating for selective adsorption, such as increasing the hydrophobic characteristic, wherein said hydrophobic coating may be composed of e.g. expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinylidene fluoride
(e.g. ¶¶ 0003, 06-13, 26, 32-41, 48, 62-68, 70-71, and 76-85).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a portion of the silica gel composition of Yoon with the activated alumina composition of Dahlgren, since Dahlgren teaches they are equivalent gas adsorbents, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.06.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to coat said activated alumina particles of Yoon as modified with said hydrophobic coating of Dahlgren, since Dahlgren teaches said hydrophobic coating may be provided for selective adsorption, such as increasing a hydrophobic characteristic.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the hydrophobic compositions of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinylidene fluoride, as taught by Dahlgren, for the hydrophobic coating on said activated alumina particles of Yoon as modified, since Dahlgren teaches said compositions are hydrophobic.
Finally, the examiner appreciates that Dahlgren refers to a fuel cell. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider gas absorbents in the fuel cell arts, since batteries and fuel cells are both electrochemical storage technologies, and further since fuel cells utilize and control gases, including organic gases.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al (KR 2016/0004247) in view of Oh et al (US 2019/0252737).
Yoon teaches the battery pack of claim 7, wherein said gas adsorption sheet comprising said polyolefin-based polymer resin, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and copolymers thereof; plus, said resin and said gas adsorbent in said weight ratio of 20:80 to 80:20, wherein said gas adsorbent may be particles of silica gel, bentonite, or said mixture thereof with said average particle size of 0.8 to 20 μm and with said BET specific surface area of 1 to 50 m2/g (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach said gas adsorbent further comprises the limitation “the trapper material further comprises polarized polymeric resin that selectively adsorbs polar solvents.”
However, Oh teaches a secondary battery including a gas-absorbing polymer that may be azo-linked porous organic polymer (“ALP”) with a particle size of e.g. 1nm-800nm and a specific surface area of e.g. 850m2/g-1250m2/g, said ALP may be e.g. polymerizing at least one monomer selected from the group consisting of 1,3,5,7-tetrakis(4-aminophenyl) adamantine; 2,6,12-triaminotriptycene; tetrakis(4-aminophenyl) methane; and, 1,3,5-tris(4-aminophenyl) benzene, said gas-absorbing polymer may selectively absorb carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide among gasses generated inside a battery cell (e.g. ¶¶ 0025-30 and 48-66).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further incorporate the gas absorbing ALP particles of Oh with the gas adsorbent sheet of Yoon, since Oh teaches said gas absorbing ALP particles selectively absorb carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide among gasses generated inside a battery cell, wherein said ALP polymer include polar monomer groups, reading on “polarized polymer” and said ALP are in the form of particles, reading on “polymeric resin,” reading on “the trapper material further comprises polarized polymeric resin….”
Oh does not teach its gas-absorbing ALP particles “selectively adsorbs polar solvents.” However, Oh teaches a substantially identical composition (see supra, compared with instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0008 and 24), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed property, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01.
Yoon as modified reading on “the trapper material further comprises polarized polymeric resin that selectively adsorbs polar solvents.”
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al (KR 2016/0004247) in view of Chang et al (US 2018/0133684).
Yoon teaches the battery pack of claim 7, wherein said gas adsorption sheet comprising said polyolefin-based polymer resin, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and copolymers thereof; plus, said resin and said gas adsorbent in said weight ratio of 20:80 to 80:20, wherein said gas adsorbent may be particles of silica gel, bentonite, or said mixture thereof with said average particle size of 0.8 to 20 μm and with said BET specific surface area of 1 to 50 m2/g (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach said gas adsorbent further comprises the limitation “the trapper material further comprises metal-organic frameworks (MOFs).”
However, Chang teaches an adsorbent for use with e.g. a secondary battery device, said adsorbent being organic-inorganic hybrid nanoporous material, so-called, Metal-Organic Framework (MOF) for use in selective adsorption site of molecules having polar and unsaturated bonds, and thus its application to adsorption of gas or liquid, said adsorbent having excellent adsorption capacity (e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 03-17, 22, 26, 33-44, 50-51, 79, and 82).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further incorporate the MOF gas adsorbent of Chang with the gas absorbent particles of Yoon, since Chang teaches said MOF has excellent adsorption capacity and/or may be use as a selective adsorption site of molecules having polar and unsaturated bonds.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al (KR 2016/0004247) in view of Schlaupitz (US 2022/0140451).
Regarding claim 16, Yoon teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein said battery pack comprising said multiple adjacent stacked battery modules (e.g. items 200), wherein each battery module comprising said lithium secondary batteries, such as said illustrated e.g. 7 lithium secondary batteries, wherein said lithium secondary batteries include said electrolyte, as provided e.g. supra, but does not expressly teach the limitation “the batteries are Graphite/NCMA (nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum) cells with an electrolyte comprising ethylene carbonate (EC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), and LiPF6.”
However, Schlaupitz teaches a lithium-ion secondary pouch battery (e.g. item 200) comprising a pouch housing (e.g. item 214) a graphite anode active material; a NCMA (nickel cobalt manganese aluminium) cathode active material; and, an ether-based liquid electrolyte that may comprise e.g. 1M LiPF6 IN 1:1 (volume) ethylene carbonate (EC) and ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC), wherein said pouch battery comprises an improved design of its tab and seal around said tab that reduces risks of electrolyte leaks (e.g. ¶¶ 0005-18, 37-40, and 60-63 plus e.g. Figures 3-6).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the battery of Schlaupitz for the battery of Yon, since Schlaupitz teaches its battery has an improved design that reduces risks of electrolyte leaks, reading on said limitation.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al (US 2026/0066457);
Yadav et al (US 2026/0031419);
Oguma et al (US 2025/0309381);
O’Neil et al (US 2023/0203265);
Zeng et al (US 2023/0030003); and,
Katzenberger et al (US 2005/0053831).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can 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 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights