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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the term “valve 18” is misspelled as “Value 18” in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10. See also [0058] of the current specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification discloses that Fig. 2 illustrates a second bag 22 and a second plate 23 [0059]; however, the second bag 22 and the second plate 23 are in Fig. 1 not in Fig. 2. Applicant is kindly advised to check for a similar issue in the rest of the current specification.
The specification discloses that there is no plate within the prismatic electrochemical cell in Fig. 3 ([0061] and [0062]); however, there is a “plate 13” in the drawing of Fig. 3.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-5, 7-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keser et al. (US 2018/0040926 A1) in view of Roh (US 2006/0088759 A1).
Claim 1: Keser teaches a battery cell 1 [0016] comprising a rigid cell housing 10 [0019] and a cell membrane 17 arranged in one side of the cell housing 10 [0019]. The battery cell 1 meets the claimed electrochemical cell, the rigid cell housing 10 meets the claimed rigid housing and the cell membrane 17 meets the claimed adjustable pressure element. Keser teaches the membrane is designed to rupture (tear-away) when the internal pressure exceeds a defined limit and allows a controlled pressure release once the internal pressure of the battery cell reaches a dangerous level [0019]. Even though Keser teaches omitting the electrodes and separator to keep the illustration simple [0019], it fails to teach anode and cathode electrodes. However, Roh teaches a stacked body of anode plates and cathode plates separated by separators; wherein the stacked body is housed in a pouch containing an electrolyte solution [0017]. The anode plate meets the claimed anode and the cathode plate meets the claimed cathode. Keser and Roh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the battery cell art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the pouch containing the anode and cathode plates of Roh with the invention of Keser, and the motivation for combining would be to protect the battery’s internal components.
Claim 2: Keser teaches a battery cell 1 [0016] comprising a rigid cell housing 10 [0019] and a cell membrane 17 arranged in one side of the cell housing 10 [0019]. The battery cell 1 meets the claimed electrochemical cell, the rigid cell housing 10 meets the claimed rigid housing and the cell membrane 17 meets the claimed adjustable pressure element. Keser teaches the membrane is designed to rupture (tear-away) when the internal pressure exceeds a defined limit and allows a controlled pressure release once the internal pressure of the battery cell reaches a dangerous level [0019]. Even though Keser teaches omitting the electrodes and separator to keep the illustration simple [0019], it fails to teach anode and cathode electrodes, and a bag. However, Roh teaches a stacked body of anode plates and cathode plates separated by separators; wherein the stacked body is housed in a pouch containing an electrolyte solution [0017], wherein the pouch is heat-sealed under a vacuum [0033]. The anode plate meets the claimed anode, the cathode plate meets the claimed cathode and the heat-sealed pouch meets the claimed bag which is part of the claimed adjustable pressure element. Keser and Roh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the battery cell art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the pouch containing the anode and cathode plates of Roh with the invention of Keser, and the motivation for combining would be to protect the battery’s internal components.
Claim 3: Keser teaches the cell membrane 17 can be an elastically deformable membrane [0019] which meets the claimed spring-loaded mechanism.
Claim 4: Keser teaches pressure is controlled in a measurement chamber 25 [0023].
Claim 5: In Roh, the pouch is heat-sealed under vacuum [0033], and it is interpreted that the gas amount in the sealed pouch would be zero or close to zero. It is further interpreted that the zero amount of gas or trace amount of gas in the pouch can be considered as a controlled amount of gas.
Claim 7: Keser teaches the measurement chamber 25 is on the cell housing 10 [0022].
Claim 8: Keser teaches a pressure sensor 21 in the measuring chamber 25 [0022].
Claim 9: Keser teaches the measurement chamber 25 is formed by a cap 20 attached to the cell housing 10 of the battery cell 1 ([0022] and [0023]). The cap 20 meets the claimed gas reservoir.
Claim 10: Keser teaches the cell membrane 17 bulges into the measurement chamber 25 when the internal pressure in the interior of the battery cell 1 increases from initially p0 to p1 [0023]. Pressure p0 and pressure p1 meet the claimed first value and second value.
Claim 11: Keser teaches parameters describing current state of the battery cell 1 (e.g. SOH, SOC) may be determined based on the measured pressure information [0034].
Claim 12: Keser teaches a change of the volume in the measurement chamber 25 can be a result of bulging of the cell membrane 17 and internal pressure of the battery cell 1 [0026]. The bulging meets the claimed distance.
Claim 13: Keser teaches the cell membrane 17 bulges into the measurement chamber 25 when the internal pressure in the interior of the battery cell 1 increases from initially p0 to p1 [0023]. Pressure p0 and pressure p1 meet the claimed change in pressure during a given time period.
Claim 15: Keser does not teach additional adjustable pressure element; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to duplicate the adjustable pressure element, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 16: The cell membrane 17 of Keser meets the claimed plate which is part of the claimed adjustable pressure element.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keser et al. (US 2018/0040926 A1) in view of Roh (US 2006/0088759 A1).
Claim 17: Keser teaches a battery cell 1 [0016] comprising a rigid cell housing 10 [0019] and a cell membrane 17 arranged in one side of the cell housing 10 [0019]. The battery cell 1 meets the claimed electrochemical cell, the rigid cell housing 10 meets the claimed rigid housing and the cell membrane 17 meets the claimed adjustable pressure element. Keser teaches the membrane is designed to rupture (tear-away) when the internal pressure exceeds a defined limit and allows a controlled pressure release once the internal pressure of the battery cell reaches a dangerous level [0019]. Keser teaches the cell membrane 17 bulges into the measurement chamber 25 when the internal pressure in the interior of the battery cell 1 increases from initially p0 to p1 [0023]. Pressure p0 and pressure p1 meet the claimed first value and second value.
Even though Keser teaches omitting the electrodes and separator to keep the illustration simple [0019], it fails to teach anode and cathode electrodes. However, Roh teaches a stacked body of anode plates and cathode plates separated by separators; wherein the stacked body is housed in a pouch containing an electrolyte solution [0017]. The anode plate meets the claimed anode and the cathode plate meets the claimed cathode. Keser and Roh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the battery cell art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the pouch containing the anode and cathode plates of Roh with the invention of Keser, and the motivation for combining would be to protect the battery’s internal components.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keser et al. (US 2018/0040926 A1) in view of Roh (US 2006/0088759 A1).
Claim 18: Keser teaches a battery cell 1 [0016] comprising a rigid cell housing 10 [0019] and a cell membrane 17 arranged in one side of the cell housing 10 [0019]. The battery cell 1 meets the claimed electrochemical cell, the rigid cell housing 10 meets the claimed rigid housing and the cell membrane 17 meets the claimed adjustable pressure element. Keser teaches the membrane is designed to rupture (tear-away) when the internal pressure exceeds a defined limit and allows a controlled pressure release once the internal pressure of the battery cell reaches a dangerous level [0019], which meets the claimed method for controlling pressure. Keser teaches the cell membrane 17 bulges into the measurement chamber 25 when the internal pressure in the interior of the battery cell 1 increases from initially p0 to p1 [0023]. Pressure p0 and pressure p1 meet the claimed first value and second value.
Even though Keser teaches omitting the electrodes and separator to keep the illustration simple [0019], it fails to teach anode and cathode electrodes. However, Roh teaches a stacked body of anode plates and cathode plates separated by separators; wherein the stacked body is housed in a pouch containing an electrolyte solution [0017]. The anode plate meets the claimed anode and the cathode plate meets the claimed cathode. Keser and Roh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the battery cell art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the pouch containing the anode and cathode plates of Roh with the invention of Keser, and the motivation for combining would be to protect the battery’s internal components.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keser et al. (US 2018/0040926 A1) and Roh (US 2006/0088759 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (US 2015/0086817 A1).
Keser teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 6: Even though Keser teaches omitting the electrodes and separator to keep the illustration simple [0019], it fails to teach anode and cathode electrodes, and a bag. However, Roh teaches a stacked body of anode plates and cathode plates separated by separators; wherein the stacked body is housed in a pouch containing an electrolyte solution [0017], wherein the pouch is heat-sealed under a vacuum [0033]. The anode plate meets the claimed anode, the cathode plate meets the claimed cathode and the heat-sealed pouch meets the claimed bag which is part of the claimed adjustable pressure element. Roh does not teach controlled fluid value; however, Chung teaches a pouch type battery cell 20 holds a cathode plate, an anode plate and a separator [0030] in which a gas is excessively generated in the pouch type battery cell 20 to increase the pressure due to overcharging, internal shore, and the like, which causes the pouch 20 to expand [0033]. The generated gas in the pouch 20 meets the claimed controlled value in fluid. Roh and Chung are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the battery art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Chung, (i.e., excessive gas can be generated in a pouch type battery cell due to overcharging, internal shore, and the like) with the invention of Roh, and the motivation for combining would be, as Chung suggested, to provide a battery pack capable of discharging excess gas (abstract). Keser, Roh and Chung are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the battery art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Roh and Chung, (i.e., a pouch/bag having a controlled fluid value) with the invention of Keser, and the motivation for combining would be, as Chung suggested, to provide a battery pack capable of discharging excess gas (abstract).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keser et al. (US 2018/0040926 A1) and Roh (US 2006/0088759 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roh et al. (US 2015/0064540 A1).
Keser teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 14: Keser does not teach the battery cell 1 has a cooling element. However, Roh ‘540 teaches a battery module having a cooling structure with a coolant inlet port and a coolant output port so as to provide a more improved cooling efficiency characteristic ([0016] and [0029]). The cooling structure meets the claimed cooling element. Keser and Roh ‘540 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the battery art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the cooling structure of Roh ‘540 with the invention of Keser, and the motivation for combining would be, as Roh suggested, to provide a battery having more improved cooling efficiency characteristics [0029].
Pertinent Prior Arts
West et al. (US 2010/0190047 A1).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
August 31, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights