DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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) 1-3, 11, 12, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 2025/0253477) in view of KIM et al. (US 2025/0202038).
Regarding claim 1,
PARK teaches a battery pack that includes venting space abstract. The battery assembly 100 includes a stack of cells 110 as shown in Fig. 2. The case is exploded in Fig. 3 and individual cells are exploded in Fig. 6. The cover portion 132 is a side plate with vent holes 132a. The vent holes 160 on the upper surface of the case are formed in the individual cell covers 150 instead of an upper plate covering. However, KIM teaches that when providing venting holes in the upper surface of a case holding a cell stack, the holes can be made into a integral upper case plate as shown in Fig. 3. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use an integral plate with vents instead of individual cell covers as an engineering choice, MPEP 2144.04.V. In addition using the upper case plate connects to each side of the case which provides structural support to the frame.
Regarding claim 2-3,
PARK teaches a stack of cells and cell covers shown in Fig. 4. The individual cell covers 150 each hold a battery cell 105 and are enclosed by first and third cover portions 152 and 154 (barrier members) Figs. 6-7. Each cell has 3 corresponding vent holes in the top surface and 1 corresponding vent hole in the side plate as shown in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 11,
PARK teaches the entire cell cover can be made of metal [0121] including the first and third cover portions between cells.
Regarding claim 12,
PARK teaches a busbar cover 180 between the side plate and busbar frame 170 (busbar assembly), see fig. 6. The cover 180 has through holes that correspond to the side plate vents as shown in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 15,
PARK teaches a heat sink 200 forms the lower portion of the fuel cell stack Fig. 8. Cell stack is exposed to the heat sink which is considered to be external to the case (the internal area being the volume defined by the side plate and upper plate). The exposure of cells prior to attaching a heat sink is shown in fig. 4.
Regarding claim 16,
The references do not expressly teach the total area of openings/vents with respect to the total area of the upper plate. However, changing the size and/or number of vents in the upper plate is considered prima facie obvious as a change of size MPEP 2144.04.IV.A or as a duplication of vent holes MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. Neither changing the size or number of vent holes changes the operation of the venting system.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 2025/0253477) in view of KIM et al. (US 2025/0202038) further in view of LEE et al. (US 2023/0395893).
Regarding claims 4-6,
PARK teaches a cell stack with vent holes in the top surface but does not teach a blocking member formed on the entire supper surface of the cell stack. However, when using an top plate with vent holes LEE teaches further including a heat blocking member 300 that entirely covers each cell and any partitions between the cells as shown in Fig. 8. LEE teaches the heat blocking material can be compressible material such as ceramic wool [0104]. The heat blocking member prevents an unexpected heat propagation from the cell stack to the housing. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the heat blocking member of LEE into the structure of PARK to prevent unexpected heat propagation from cell stack to housing.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 2025/0253477) in view of KIM et al. (US 2025/0202038) and LEE et al. (US 2023/0395893) further in view of BENKER et al. (US 2023/0187767).
Regarding claim 7,
Modified park teaches forming vent holes in a top surface but does not teach a protective sheet with a fractured portion corresponding to the vent holes. However, BENKER generally teaches that when using a housing 24 with vent holes 32 a plastic film with a predetermined breaking point 30 corresponding to the vent hole can be used as shown in Fig. 1. The plastic film is breakable which allows the vents to be used to prevent explosions while also covering the vent holes to provide a sealed volume for the battery (preventing outside dirt and moisture) [0002]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the breakable film of BENKER to seal the vents from dirt and moisture while also preventing pressure build up.
Regarding claim 8,
The plastic film of BENKER is considered to be a high-temperature fire-resistant insulating paper. The examiner notes that the insulating paper is not particularly limited in the specification other than noting it can be inorganic-based material.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 2025/0253477) in view of KIM et al. (US 2025/0202038) and LEE et al. (US 2023/0395893) further in view LEE et al. (US 2024/0283085; hereinafter LEE II).
Regarding claim 9,
Modified PARK teaches vent holes in an upper plate but does not expressly teach a protective sheet on the external side of the upper plate with open portions corresponding to the first vent holes. However, LEE II teaches that when providing a venting cover layer 800 for a cell stack, the venting layer can include both the barrier layer 110 facing the cell stack and a second refractory protective layer 830 with corresponding vent openings to the first layer with vent holes 820, see [0095]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a secondary refractory layer with a corresponding venting opening to add extra flame protection and structural stability.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 2025/0253477) in view of KIM et al. (US 2025/0202038) and LEE et al. (US 2023/0395893) further in view LEE et al. (US 2024/0283085; hereinafter LEE II) and CHOI et al. (US 2022/0173475).
Regarding claim 10,
LEE II teaches the second refractory protective layer can be used but does not expressly teach the use of mica sheets. PARK teaches the use of mica as an insulator/refractory material but does not specify if the mica is particulate filler or mica sheets. However, when preventing flame and heat transfer CHOI teaches in the context of batteries the material used can be mica sheets [0065]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use mica sheets as the insulating/refractory material mica material as a known morphology for mica.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 2025/0253477) in view of KIM et al. (US 2025/0202038) further in view of LEE et al. (US 2025/0167362; hereinafter LEE III).
Regarding claim 13 and 14,
PARK teaches a busbar and side plate vent but does not teach an anti-diffusion pad blocking the venting guides. However, LEE III teaches incorporating a metal mesh member 400 on the interior of side plate vents as shown in fig. 2, [0063]. The mesh prevents flow of flame [0062] while not blocking the vent. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to put the metal mesh member of LEE on the side plate vent of PARK to suppress flame spread.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights