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.
Claims 1-4, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al. (US 20200152942), hereinafter Page.
Regarding claim 1, Page teaches a cover for a battery module or for a battery store ([0055], Fig. 3-5, lid 201/301) that comprises:
a plurality of battery cells ([0122], Fig. 3-5, batteries 204/304);
the cover comprises ([0055], Fig. 3-5, lid 201/301):
a first layer facing toward the battery cells in the mounted state of the cover (Fig. 5, lid 301);
a second layer facing away from the battery cells in the mounted state of the cover (Fig. 8, removable lid 401);
the first layer comprises at least one penetration device, which enables a passage of hot gas from a battery cell through the first layer at a penetration point (Claim 28, [0073], lid 301, through holes 303);
the gas that has passed through the first layer is able to be dissipated from the penetration point in an interspace between the first layer and the second layer (Fig. 8, [0073]).
Page teaches a cover for a battery module comprising a first layer facing the battery cells and a removable lid (Fig. 8, removable lid 401) positioned above the first layer. The removable lid of Page corresponds to the claimed second layer facing away from the battery cells. Page further teaches that, upon thermal runaway or cell venting, gas passes through an opening or weakened region of the first layer and is subsequently release to the exterior of the battery module (Fig. 8, [0073]).
Although Page does not expressly state that the gas is dissipated within an interspace between the first layer and the second layer before being released, the removeable lid is necessarily spaced from the underlying first layer to permit assembly and accommodation of vented gases. Accordingly, gas passing through the first layer would inherently enter the space between the first and second layer prior to exiting the battery module.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the removable lid of Page such that vented gas is distributed through the space between the first layer and the lid before being discharged, as this represents a predictable use of known venting arrangements to direct and manage hot gases, thereby improving venting performance and reducing localized thermal effects within the battery system.
Regarding claim 2, Page teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Page teaches the second layer is impenetrable to hot gas that passes through the first layer at the penetration point ([0086], Fig. 8, removable lid 401). Page teaches that the second layer comprises a lid which is formed of steel. Steel is a gas-impermeable material and therefore is impenetrable to hot gas passing from the first layer.
Regarding claim 3, Page teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Page teaches at least one of i) the first layer and ii) the second layer comprise(s) a micaceous material ([0043]). Specifically, Page teaches the use of mica as a fire-retardant material within the cover structure. Mica is a micaceous material.
Regarding claim 4, Page teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Page teaches at least one of i) the first layer and ii) the second layer comprise(s) at least one of i) a high temperature resistant material and ii) a fiber composite material ([0036], [0086], [0092-0096]). Specifically, Page teaches that the cover components may be formed from intumescent flame-retardant materials, steel, carbon fiber reinforced polymer composites, fiberglass reinforced polymer composites, ceramics, or similar materials. Such materials are recognized in the art as high-temperature-resistant materials and/or fiber composite materials capable of withstanding the elevated temperatures associated with battery venting and thermal runaway events.
Regarding claim 9, Page teaches a battery module or battery store (Claim 26), comprising:
a plurality of battery cells ([0122], Fig. 3-5, batteries 204/304);
at least one cover comprising ([0055], Fig. 3-5, lid 201/301):
a first layer facing toward the battery cells in the mounted state of the cover (Fig. 5, lid 301);
a second layer facing away from the battery cells in the mounted state of the cover (Fig. 8, removable lid 401);
the first layer comprises at least one penetration device, which enables a passage of hot gas from a battery cell through the first layer at a penetration point (Claim 28, [0073], lid 301, through holes 303);
the gas that has passed through the first layer is able to be dissipated from the penetration point in an interspace between the first layer and the second layer (Fig. 8, [0073]).
Page teaches a cover for a battery module comprising a first layer facing the battery cells and a removable lid (Fig. 8, removable lid 401) positioned above the first layer. The removable lid of Page corresponds to the claimed second layer facing away from the battery cells. Page further teaches that, upon thermal runaway or cell venting, gas passes through an opening or weakened region of the first layer and is subsequently release to the exterior of the battery module (Fig. 8, [0073]).
Although Page does not expressly state that the gas is dissipated within an interspace between the first layer and the second layer before being released, the removeable lid is necessarily spaced from the underlying first layer to permit assembly and accommodation of vented gases. Accordingly, gas passing through the first layer would inherently enter the space between the first and second layer prior to exiting the battery module.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the removable lid of Page such that vented gas is distributed through the space between the first layer and the lid before being discharged, as this represents a predictable use of known venting arrangements to direct and manage hot gases, thereby improving venting performance and reducing localized thermal effects within the battery system.
Regarding claim 10, Page teaches the limitations of claim 9, as stated above. Page teaches the battery cells are configured as round cells (Claim 26, batteries 304).
Regarding claim 11, Page teaches the limitations of claim 10, as stated above. Page teaches the first layer and the second layer of the cover are oriented substantially perpendicularly to the longitudinal center axes of the battery cells (Fig. 8).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page in view of Ashbolt et al.(US 20200052264 A1), hereinafter Ashbolt.
Regarding claim 5, Page teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Page fails to teach the penetration device comprises at least one line of weakness. Ashbolt teaches the penetration device comprises at least one line of weakness (Abstract). Page and Ashbolt are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries with venting structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the line of weakness taught by Ashbolt into the penetration device of Page in order to provide controlled venting of hot gases and predictable opening behavior during a battery venting event.
Regarding claim 6, Page and Asholt teach the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Pages fails to teach at least one line of weakness is configured as a perforation line. Ashbolt teaches at least one line of weakness is configured as a perforation line ([0010]). Page and Ashbolt are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries with venting structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to utilize Ashbolt’s penetration line in the cover of Page to facilitate controlled gas discharge from the battery module.
Regarding claim 7, Page and Ashbolt teach the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Page fails to teach at least one line of weakness is of annularly closed configuration ([0049]). Ashbolt teaches at least one line of weakness is of annularly closed configuration ([0049]). Page and Ashbolt are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries with venting structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to employ the annularly closed configuration taught by Ashbolt in the venting structure of Page because such a configuration provides a predictable and controlled opening geometry upon rupture.
Regarding claim 8, Page and Ashbolt teach the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Page fails to teach at least two lines of weakness intersect one another. Ashbolt teaches a penetration device comprising lines of weakness that are configured to rupture and facilitate venting ([0049]). Although Ashbolt does not expressly disclose at least two lines of weakness intersecting one another. Page and Ashbolt are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries with venting structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to arrange multiple lines of weakness so that they intersect. Intersecting lines of weakness represent a known predictable vent-pattern configuration that promotes controlled rupture of a designated region and facilitates reliable opening of the vent structure under pressure. Modifying the lines of weakness of Ashbolt to intersect would have been no more than the predictable use of known venting geometries to achieve controlled gas release and predictable fracture behavior.
Conclusion
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