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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US 2024/0250342-A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed January 23, 2024 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scharner (DE-102017212223-A1; “Scharner”).
Regarding Claim 1, Scharner teaches a battery of an electrically driven motor vehicle with a number of energy storage (battery) cells, each of which has a housing opening that is closed with a bursting membrane (Abstract). Furthermore, Scharner teaches that in a thermal event (in the event of a fault), the gas in the energy storage cell builds up and results in a high pressure, causing the bursting membrane to burst and hot gas to flow (degassing) out of the energy storage cell (battery) through the housing opening or the burst membrane (ninth full paragraph of Page 2)(a plurality of battery cells, each of which has a closed outgassing opening which opens in an event of a fault). Scharner teaches that the cooling plate supplies a coolant into the cell housing of the corresponding energy storage (battery) cell (battery cells are immersion cooled) (seventh full paragraph of Page 2). Scharner teaches that the cooling may be designed both as a further emergency cooling or provided for permanent operation (fourth full paragraph of Page 4).
Scharner teaches that the cell housing is made of steel (the first material) (last paragraph of Page 2) while a particularly thermally conductive bursting membrane closes the opening (cutout) provided on a first side of the housing (a material with a lower heat resistance) (first material) (sixth full paragraph of Page 2).
Scharner teaches a plate part of the cooling plate facing the cell housing and covering the closure and the inlet is formed from a thermally comparatively highly conductive material (seventh full paragraph of Page 4). In other words, that part of the cooling plate is formed from a thermally comparatively highly conductive material which is arranged between the inlet and the closure on the one hand and the cell housing on the other hand (seventh full paragraph of Page 4). Scharner teaches that the closure, which opens in the case of triggering the inlet into the passage, is formed of a fusible alloy (second material), for example in the form of a plug. Scharner also teaches that a metal with a suitable melting temperature may be designed as a closure, explaining that the fusible alloy clogs the inlet during normal operation of the battery. When triggered, the melting alloy melts due to the released in the energy storage cell thermal energy and thus opens the inlet, whereby the trapped under pressure coolant flows automatically into the passage or in the cell housing (sixth full paragraph of Page 6). Scharner teaches that in the case of steel as a cell housing material (first material) melting of the cell housing is also avoided in the case of high temperatures in a triggering case (in an event of a fault) (last paragraph of Page 2). Scharner teaches that the battery has a cooling plate with a passage aligned with the opening (cutout) of the cell housing (sixth full paragraph of Page 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Scharner teaches that the closure, which opens in the case of triggering the inlet into the passage, is formed of a fusible alloy (second material), for example in the form of a plug. Scharner also teaches that a metal with a suitable melting temperature may be designed as a closure, explaining that the fusible alloy clogs the inlet during normal operation of the battery. When triggered, the melting alloy melts due to the released in the energy storage cell thermal energy and thus opens the inlet, whereby the trapped under pressure coolant flows automatically into the passage (channel) or in the cell housing (sixth full paragraph of Page 6). Scharner teaches that in the case of steel as a cell housing material (first material) melting of the cell housing is also avoided in the case of high temperatures in a triggering case (in an event of a fault) (last paragraph of Page 2). Scharner teaches that the battery has a cooling plate with a passage aligned with the opening (cutout) of the cell housing (face of the battery cells) (sixth full paragraph of Page 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Scharner teaches an electrically driven motor vehicle containing the drive battery of claim 1 (second full paragraph of Page 6).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scharner (DE-102017212223-A1; “Scharner”) in view of Zheng (“Ceramic foams with highly open channel structure from direct foaming method in combination with hollow spheres as pore-former”; “Zheng”).
Scharner teaches that the insert may be a ceramic foam which is in the form of a plug (sixth full paragraph of Page 4). Zheng teaches that ceramic foam contains hollow pores, or cavities as an inherent property because ceramic foams contain a unique pore structure (first full paragraph of Page 2). Zheng further details that the ceramic foams may be in the form of a closed pore structure or with an open-channel structure (first full paragraph of Page 2). Large-volume cavities are also contained in the ceramic foams characterized by Zheng (last paragraph of Page 3).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Scharner (DE-102017212223-A1; “Scharner”) in view of Fuchs (DE-102020117546-A1; “Fuchs”).
Regarding Claims 2-4, 6, and 8-9, Scharner teaches the limitations of Claims 1 as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 2, Scharner teaches that a wall of the cell degassing space opposite the cooling plate is formed (lies against a face of the battery cells in which the outgassing opening has been made), at least partially, by a protective lining (mat) arranged on the underside of the motor vehicle (fifth full paragraph of Page 3).
Scharner does not teach that the protective lining has cutouts, nor its heat resistance.
Fuchs teaches a protective mat that covers all of the battery cells of a module (ninth full paragraph of Page 2). Moreover, Fuchs teaches a holder (mat) with cell specific covers characterized by high thermal stability and also teaches they may be made of silicone foam. Fuchs also teaches that the material of the covers A (second material) is weaker than that of the holder H (first material) (sixth full paragraph of Page 4) (second material has a lower heat resistance than the first material). Please refer to figure (4) which shows a schematic view of cell-specific round covers for round cells, which are attached to a bracket (mat) on the top of the cells (first full paragraph of Page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Scharner by adding a material layer in the form of a mat over the steel housing. This new material layer would lie against a face of the battery cells in which the outgassing opening has been made, wherein the material layer is made of a first material, wherein on outer sides of the outgassing openings, the first material includes cutouts, and a second material with a lower heat resistance than the first material is provided. Scharner and Fuchs each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)). Fuchs teaches the thermal effects and ejection of conductive material on neighboring cells during a fault can lead to electrical short circuits (third full paragraph of Page 3), providing the adequate motivation for incorporating these features readily known in the art. The addition of the mat would provide protection to all battery cells in the module in the event of thermal runaway by limiting thermal spread and preventing electrical short circuits (last full paragraph of Page 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Scharner teaches that a housing opening provided on a side is closed with a bursting membrane (Abstract).
Scharner does not teach the first material is cut out in a form of a cylinder with a diameter which is the same or greater than a diameter of the associated outgassing opening.
Fuchs teaches the protective device can be used with any cell shape, including cylindrical (tenth full paragraph of Page 3). Please refer to the below figure (Fig. 4) to see a schematic view of a schematic view of cell-specific round covers for round cells, which are attached to a bracket (mat) on the top of the cells (first full paragraph of Page 4). Figure 4 of Fuchs also shows that the first material (holder) is cut out in a form of a cylinder with a diameter which is the same as or greater than a diameter of the associated outgassing opening.
[AltContent: textbox (Holder (mat))]
PNG
media_image1.png
757
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cell-Specific Covers (second material))]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outgassing opening)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Cylindrical Battery Cells)]
Fig. 4 of Fuchs, duplicated from Page 13 of Fuchs
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Scharner in view of Fuchs by adding the first material in the form of a cylinder with a diameter which is the same as or greater than a diameter of the associated outgassing opening against a face of the battery cells in which the outgassing opening has been made, as taught by Fuchs. Scharner and Fuchs each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)). - Fuchs teaches that a protective device according to the invention can be used with any cell shape, whether cylindrical or prismatic, as well as with pouch cells (tenth full paragraph of Page 3). It would be obvious to pick from the finite list of options for cell shape provided for in in paragraph (tenth full paragraph of Page 3) and arrive at the combination (protective mat covering cylindrical battery cells) claimed (MPEP 2143). Fuchs also explains that the holder is also designed in such a way that if a battery cell bursts, only the area of its cell-specific cover is destroyed (sixth full paragraph of Page 3). Fuchs provides the adequate motivation for incorporating these features readily known in the art – the protection of the battery module (fifth full paragraph of Page 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Scharner teaches that a housing opening provided on a side is closed with a bursting membrane (Abstract).
Scharner does not teach the first material is cut out in a form of a cylinder with a diameter which is the same or greater than a diameter of the associated outgassing opening.
Fuchs teaches the protective device can be used with any cell shape, including cylindrical (tenth full paragraph of Page 3). Please refer to the below figure (Fig. 4) to see a schematic view of a schematic view of cell-specific round covers for round cells, which are attached to a bracket (mat) on the top of the cells (first full paragraph of Page 4). Figure 4 of Fuchs also shows that the first material (holder) is cut out in a form of a cylinder with a diameter which is the same as or greater than a diameter of the associated outgassing opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Scharner by adding the first material in the form of a cylinder with a diameter which is the same as or greater than a diameter of the associated outgassing opening against a face of the battery cells in which the outgassing opening has been made, as taught by Fuchs. Scharner and Fuchs each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)). - Fuchs teaches that a protective device according to the invention can be used with any cell shape, whether cylindrical or prismatic, as well as with pouch cells (tenth full paragraph of Page 3). It would be obvious to pick from the finite list of options for cell shape provided for in in paragraph (tenth full paragraph of Page 3) and arrive at the combination (protective mat covering cylindrical battery cells) claimed (MPEP 2143). Fuchs also explains that the holder is also designed in such a way that if a battery cell bursts, only the area of its cell-specific cover is destroyed (sixth full paragraph of Page 3). Fuchs provides the adequate motivation for incorporating these features readily known in the art – the protection of the battery module (fifth full paragraph of Page 5).
Regarding Claims 4, 6, and 9, Scharner teaches that the closure, which opens in the case of triggering the inlet into the passage, is formed of a fusible alloy (second material), for example in the form of a plug. Scharner also teaches that a metal with a suitable melting temperature may be designed as a closure, explaining that the fusible alloy clogs the inlet during normal operation of the battery. When triggered, the melting alloy melts due to the released energy storage cell thermal energy and thus opens the inlet, whereby the trapped under pressure coolant flows automatically into the passage (channel) or in the cell housing (sixth full paragraph of Page 6). Scharner teaches that in the case of steel as a cell housing material (first material) melting of the cell housing is also avoided in the case of high temperatures in a triggering case (in an event of a fault) (last paragraph of Page 2). Scharner teaches that the battery has a cooling plate with a passage aligned with the opening (cutout) of the cell housing (face of the battery cells) (sixth full paragraph of Page 2).
Claims 5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Scharner (DE-102017212223-A1; “Scharner”) in view of Fuchs (DE-102020117546-A1; “Fuchs”) and Zheng (“Ceramic foams with highly open channel structure from direct foaming method in combination with hollow spheres as pore-former”; “Zheng”).
Regarding Claim 5, 7, and 10, Scharner in view of Fuchs teach the limitations of Claims 4, 6, and 9 as discussed above.
Scharner teaches that the insert may be a ceramic foam which is in the form of a plug (sixth full paragraph of Page 4). Zheng teaches that ceramic foam contains hollow pores, or cavities as an inherent property because ceramic foams contain a unique pore structure (first full paragraph of Page 2). Zheng further details that the ceramic foams may be in the form of a closed pore structure or with an open-channel structure (first full paragraph of Page 2). Large-volume cavities are also contained in the ceramic foams characterized by Zheng (last paragraph of Page 3).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO-2021164985-A1 to Frederik M teaches a gap filler (mat) that is thermally conductive (third full paragraph of Page 3); also teaches a framework cell holder that is rigid or stiff (first paragraph of Page 3
DE-102018202947-A1 teaches a pressure relief opening (third full paragraph of Page 3) and the ability for fluid from the inside of the battery case to escape (first full paragraph of Page 6)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-0315. The examiner can normally be reached 8a.m.-5p.m..
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE/
Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights