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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6, 9, 12, 13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4, 6, 9, 12, 13 and 17-20, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For purposes of this examination, the limitations following “in particular” will be interpreted as being optional.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evans (US 2021/0163303).
Regarding claim 1, Evans discloses an energy storage device for a motor vehicle (see abstract and paragraph 115 which discloses a vehicle comprising batteries), wherein the energy storage device includes a battery module (such as the battery module disclosed in paragraph 23) and at least one thermally insulating filling element (such as the “heat control member” described in paragraph 24), wherein the filling element is designed to be soluble (this italicized portion claims an intention for design, which does not further define the composition and/or structure of the claimed energy storage device, however, it is also noted that Evans, such as in paragraph 29, also discloses a composition that is silica aerogel which is naturally hydrophilic and will absorb at least a portion of the water), so that it dissolves at least in part when it comes into contact with a specific minimum amount of a specific liquid (this italicized limitation does not further define the claimed apparatus, but reiterates the definition of what soluble is).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Evans further discloses the battery module includes at least two battery cells arranged adjacent to one another in a first direction, wherein the filling element is designed as a thermally insulating cell separator element arranged between the two battery cells (see paragraph 115 which discloses a plurality of cells with a thermal insulation sheet made of an aerogel in between the cells, suggesting they are aligned in a first direction).
Regarding claim 3, Evans further discloses the filling element is designed in such a way that it does not dissolve or does not completely dissolve on contact with the specific liquid below the specific minimum amount (the aerogel sheet of Evens will not dissolve in a liquid that is below a certain amount needed for solution).
Regarding claim 4, Evans further discloses a structure and composition that is capable of absorbing a liquid. The phrase “filling element is designed to absorb and in particular bind a certain amount of the specified liquid, in particular below the specified minimum amount.” is directed toward a design intention and does not positively recite any structural features other than a material that is capable of absorbing, in any amount. Evans meets this by disclosing an aerogel which is capable of absorbing liquids.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Imae (US 2025/0316791).
Regarding claim 1, Imae discloses an energy storage device for a motor vehicle (see paragraph 1), wherein the energy storage device includes a battery module (as described in paragraph 1) and at least one thermally insulating filling element (thermal insulating/flame barrier as described in paragraph 1), wherein the filling element is designed to be soluble (this italicized portion claims an intention for design, which does not further define the composition and/or structure of the claimed energy storage device, however, it is also noted that Imae, such as in paragraph 57, also discloses a composition that is silica aerogel which is naturally hydrophilic and will absorb water which will cause some collapsing of the aerogel), so that it dissolves at least in part when it comes into contact with a specific minimum amount of a specific liquid (this italicized limitation does not further define the claimed apparatus, but reiterates the definition of what soluble is).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Imae further discloses the battery module includes at least two battery cells arranged adjacent to one another in a first direction (as depicted in Fig. 9 which illustrates a plurality of battery cells 8), wherein the filling element is designed as a thermally insulating cell separator element arranged between the two battery cells (see cell separators/thermal insulating/flame barrier sheets 9 in between the cells).
Regarding claim 3, Imae further discloses the filling element is designed in such a way that it does not dissolve or does not completely dissolve on contact with the specific liquid below the specific minimum amount (the aerogel sheet of Imae will not dissolve in a liquid that is below a certain amount needed for solution).
Regarding claim 4, Imae further discloses a structure and composition that is capable of absorbing a liquid. The phrase “filling element is designed to absorb and in particular bind a certain amount of the specified liquid, in particular below the specified minimum amount.” is directed toward a design intention and does not positively recite any structural features other than a material that is capable of absorbing, in any amount. Imae meets this by disclosing an aerogel which is capable of absorbing liquids.
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 14-16, Imae further discloses the specific liquid is water (see paragraph 57 which discloses a composition that is a hydrophilic silica aerogel which will absorb water to a certain degree).
Regarding claim 7, Imae further discloses the filling element is designed to be soluble such that it dissolves at least in part when it comes into contact with the specific liquid. In this claim, Applicant is only reciting that the filling element is defined by being soluble in some un-named liquid and does not actually claim that the liquid is present. As such, the silica aerogel of Imae is indeed dissolvable in a liquid, such as a hydrofluoric acid.
Regarding claim 9, Imae further discloses the energy storage device includes an intermediate space which is not located between two battery cells of the same battery module and which is arranged in particular outside of the cell stack formed by the battery cells of the battery module, wherein the filling element is arranged in the intermediate space (see annotated Fig. 3 below which illustrates an intermediate space that is not between battery cells and contains the filling element 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
379
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding claims 11-13, Imae further discloses the filling element is designed in such a way that it does not dissolve or does not completely dissolve on contact with the specific liquid below the specific minimum amount and it can absorb a certain amount of liquid below a specified amount. Again, this claim is not further defining the claimed apparatus other that stating that the filling element will not dissolve and can absorb liquid in an amount “below the specific minimum amount” of liquid. Claimed this way, this liquid does not need to be present at all and the filling element will not dissolve in a liquid that is not present and the aerogels of Imae will indeed absorb a certain amount, such as water in the hydrophilic aerogel of Imae.
Regarding claims 17-20, Imae further discloses the filling element comprises a hydrophilic aerogel (paragraph 57 which discloses the presence of a hydrophilic aerogel).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imae (US 2025/0316791) in view of Woehrle (US 2012/0312562).
Regarding claim 10, Imae discloses a method for counteracting a fire of an energy storage device for a motor vehicle, which includes at least one battery module (as described in paragraph 1) and a thermally insulating filling element (see paragraph 57 which discloses a composition that is silica aerogel which is naturally hydrophilic and will absorb water and makes up a thermal barrier), wherein to counteract the fire.
Imae, however, is silent regarding supplying a liquid to the energy storage device which at least partially dissolves the filling element/thermal barrier.
Woehrle also disclose a battery system (see abstract).
Woehrle teaches supplying an aqueous liquid to a battery cell in order to extinguish a fire (see paragraph 11). Woehrle teaches that this water containing fluid is flowed to a battery cell that is on fire and assists in extinguishing the fire (see paragraph 20 which discloses a method of extinguishing a fire which involves contacting the battery and battery cell with a water containing fluid).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the method of fire extinguishing of Woehrle to the method of Imae in order to extinguish a battery fire. Furthermore, such a modification would contact an aqueous fluid with the hydrophilic thermal barrier of Imae which would results in at least a portion of the hydrophilic barrier to be dissolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725