DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-14 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim refers to “a plurality of battery cells” and then appears to refer to “one end of the battery cell in a second direction.” The battery cell being referred to lacks an antecedent basis as a particular battery cell amongst the plurality of battery cells. Similarly, reference to “the end of the plurality of battery cells” is indefinite because on its face it refers to “an end of the plurality” that is not previously referred to, but appears to refer, instead, to a guarding portion that covers the tops or ends of each of the battery cells in the plurality of battery cells. The claim has been interpreted broadly in line with the specification as referring to a stack of cells with a cover over it.
Claim 2 refers to “a plurality ones of the venting ports.” It is unclear what this means, though it appears to refer to “a plurality of the plurality of venting ports.” Perhaps the claims should be rewritten to avoid such awkward constructions. The claim has been interpreted to require rows of venting ports spaced along intervals.
Claim 7 refers to “the second guarding portion,” which has no clear antecedent. Claim 6 refers to “two second guarding portions” and it is unclear which one is being referred to. The claim has been interpreted as referring to at least one of the second guarding portions.
The other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoefner (US 2020/0365859 to Hoefner).
Regarding Claim 1, Hoefner teaches:
a battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells arranged along a first stacking direction, with a top end of the cell in a second, vertical direction provided with a pressure relief mechanism 18 configured to exhaust gases when a cell overheats or the pressure exceeds a given threshold (Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0038)
a first guard 14 comprising a first guarding portion 14a covering the top ends of the cells, and a plurality of venting ports 22 provided on the first guarding portion, and staggered in the vertical direction (Fig. 5, ¶ 0040-0043)
PNG
media_image1.png
436
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
674
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
470
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Hoefner teaches:
wherein the plurality of venting ports comprise at least one row of venting ports with a plurality of venting ports 22 arranged at intervals along the stacking direction (Fig. 3)
Regarding Claim 3, Hoefner teaches:
the plurality of venting ports 22 comprise one row and the ports are provided between the pressure relief mechanisms of every two adjacent cells (Figs. 1-5)
Regarding Claim 4, Hoefner teaches:
two rows of venting ports on either side of the pressure relief mechanism 18 in a third, width direction (Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 6, Hoefner teaches:
the battery module has two opposite side plates in the width direction, visible through the holes provided on the outermost retaining plates, which read on two second guarding portions, that are connected to both end of the first guarding portion 14 through housing portion 20, the outermost retaining plates respectively covering the outer side surfaces of the two side plates (Fig. 20)
PNG
media_image4.png
534
562
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Hoefner teaches:
a battery comprising a box body (visible in Fig. 1) and a battery module comprising a stack of cells accommodated within the box body
Regarding Claim 14, Hoefner teaches:
an electrical apparatus used with the battery (abstract, ¶ 0001-0008)
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoefner (US 2020/0365859 to Hoefner) in view of Jeong (US 2020/0295332 to Jeong et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Hoefner teaches:
a fire-resistant guard material, such as a ceramic (¶ 0014)
Jeong, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a fire-proof material, teaches a multi-layer laminate comprising multiple layers of mica papers with a thickness of over 3 mm (e.g., ¶ 0044). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It would have been obvious to use a mica laminate such as that taught in Jeong, since Hoefner teaches the use of fire-resistant ceramics.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoefner (US 2020/0365859 to Hoefner) in view of Chen (US 209374623 to Chen et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Hoefner does not explicitly teach:
two guarding portions comprising a laminated reinforcing plate and a guarding layer, the guarding layer provided on an outermost side, the guarding portions connected to the top guarding portion and covering side plates the battery cell stack
Chen, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells stacked in a battery box, as was conventional in the art, teaches providing a U-shaped fire-resistant blocking plate, including a top 1 with a mica plate 2,and side guarding portions, each comprising a reinforcing side plate laminated with guarding layers 3 of mica paper (pp. 1-2, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to form an extended U-shaped fire-proof blocking plate in Hoefner, by extending the guard 14 over and down the side plates of the battery module box, as taught in Chen, with the motivation to improve the fire resistance of the module.
PNG
media_image5.png
530
410
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoefner (US 2020/0365859 to Hoefner) in view of Lu (CN 113381113 to Lu et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation).
Regarding Claim 8, Hoefner may or may not teach:
a pair of end plates—the specification does not refer to end plates, but Fig. 1 ambiguously shows end plates as part of the battery box
End plates for battery cell stacks were common in the art as a way of compressing the stack and protecting it from the environment. Lu, for example, teaches a cell stack with a pair of end plates and second guards 1 on the outer surfaces of the end plates comprising an arbitrarily definable “third guarding portion” that covers the outer side surfaces of the corresponding end plates (Fig. 2, p. 3) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use an end plate like that Lu as end plates in Hoefner, with the motivation to provide a secure terminal outlet, compression, and protection, including for all the dependent claims discussed below.
PNG
media_image6.png
520
576
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Lu further renders obvious:
a guarding portion comprising a “second” reinforcing plate 2 and a “second” guarding layer 1 arranged in a laminated manner, the second guarding layer 1 provided outside the reinforcing plate 2 facing away from the end plate (p. 3, Figs. 2-4)
Regarding Claim 10, Lu further renders obvious:
the end plate comprising a body portion, arbitrarily designated as part of the end plate 1 forming a mounting portion protruding from a mounting surface, used for mounting a terminal tab electrically connected to the battery cell and part of the third guarding portion covers the mounting surface (see Figs. 3-4, showing portions of the cover, designated as “a guarding portion” covering, or over, the outlet 11)
PNG
media_image7.png
354
556
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
442
472
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Lu further renders obvious:
an insulating cover 5 between the end plate and the cells and the insulating cover has a blank area not blocked by the end plate, defined as the outermost part of the cover 1 through which the fasteners go
the blank area, such as the bottom edge of 5, being covered by what can be called a “fourth guarding portion” of the cover 1 such as its bottom edge (Figs. 2-4)
Regarding Claim 12, Lu does not teach:
the fourth guarding area provided with as a laminate with a guarding layer and a reinforcing plate
It would have been obvious to provide such a laminate to improve the fire resistance of the end plate. See, e.g., previously cited Jeong or Chen for evidence that use of laminate side walls and materials was conventional in the art for improving fire resistance. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
