DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added claim language of both independent claims 1 and 11 includes the “wherein at least two sides of the vent manifold are formed from a thermally responsive material configured to expand when exposed to pressurized hot gases.” (C1/L8-10, C11/L17-19) which is unsupported in the specification. The drawings 6a-6c, which show the elected Species D, do not show “at least two sides of the vent manifold” expanding in response to the hot gases, rather a mere change of geometry that does not seem to involve expansion. The specification [0050] pertaining to the elected species which was pointed to by the applicant in the arguments section further does not support specifically an expansion. The examiner also has considered [0051] which also describes the elected species. [0051] does not state that two parts of the vent manifold “expand” in response to the hot gases, but rather that the manifold deforms (“deformation”) resulting in the hatch detaching and opening the fluid inlet.
For future amendments, while the examiner does not agree that expansion of the at least two sides is supported, multiple sides deforming would be supported.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-9, 12-13, 15, 17-19 are rejected based on their dependency on the above rejected claims.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20210320337-A1 (C).
Regarding claim 1, C teaches
A battery module [0039] comprising: a module housing including a plurality of walls (2, 6) defining an interior; a plurality of battery cells (1) arranged in the interior, each of the plurality of battery cells including a vent (opening covered by 11); and a vent manifold (3 and 11 for each battery, taken together) is connected to each of the plurality of battery cells, the vent manifold including a central passage (33) fluidically connected to the vent in each of the plurality of battery cells [0049] and a fluid inlet (opening covered by 322) that selectively allows passage of an amount of fluid into select ones of the plurality of battery cells [0042], wherein at least two sides of the vent manifold (straight edge portions of 322, see Fig. 5) are formed from a thermally responsive material configured to expand when exposed to pressurized hot gases [0042].
It can be said that the at least two sides are “thermally responsive” because the bottom plate portion melts in response to thermal runaway [0042]. The edges of the bottom plate portion can be expected to expand in a vertical direction either due to gravity or pressure after melting, so it can be said to expand.
Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over C.
Regarding claim 2, C teaches
the vent manifold includes a first surface (321) coupled to each of the plurality of battery cells, a second surface (part of 31 opposite to 321) extending parallel to and spaced from the first surface, a first side surface, and a second side (first and second side surfaces are the side walls of the interior 33, see Fig. 5) surface extending between and connected to the first surface and the second surface, the fluid inlet being arranged in the first side surface (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, C teaches a thermally responsive hatch (center of 322) disposed over the fluid inlet.
Regarding claim 5, C teaches the vent manifold includes a first hatch support arranged on one side of the fluid inlet and a second hatch support (see annotated Fig. 5 below, portions of 321 indicated with arrows) arranged on a second side of the fluid inlet, the thermally responsive hatch being selectively supported [0047] between the first hatch support and the second hatch support closing the fluid inlet.
PNG
media_image1.png
285
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, C teaches an amount of fluid (4) arranged in the interior of the module housing, the fluid inlet selectively passing a portion of the amount of fluid from the interior to flow through the vent of the select ones of the plurality of battery cells [0047].
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210320337-A1 (C) in view of EP-2883577-A1 (MESLI).
Regarding claim 7, the teachings of C are explained in the rejection of claim 1. C teaches the use of a fluid (4) to suppress thermal runaway [0042], making this a fire extinguishing unit.
C does not teach a fluid additive module.
MESLI teaches a fire extinguisher (1) with a pressurized liquid (7) that comprises water [0022].
MESLI teaches an additive module (11) which adds an additive (13) as is standard in the art to improve
extinguishing qualities [0002]. MESLI teaches the additive module is located on the extinguisher head (3)
in order to not increase the size of the extinguisher and allows for the additive to be replaced without
replacing the whole extinguisher [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant
invention to modify the fire extinguishing unit of C to have the additive module of MESLI in order to
achieve the benefit of improving the extinguishing qualities of the fluid. In doing so, it would have been
obvious to put the additive module as a part of the fluid inlet because doing so would not increase the
size of the fire extinguishing unit significantly and would allow for replacement of the additive without
replacing the full unit.
Doing so would result in the additive being added in a specific quantity to the fluid passing
through the vent manifold of one of the plurality of battery cells. The content of the instant claim 7 is
unpatentable over this combination.
Regarding claim 8, MESLI teaches the fluid additive module is mounted to the side of the opening of the fire extinguisher (see Fig. 3). In the implementation of the additive module to the fire extinguishing unit of C, the additive would therefore have to be attached to one of the first side surface and the second side surface over the fluid inlet.
Claims 11, 12, 13, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210320337-A1 (C) in view of US-20260031516-A1 (J).
Regarding claim 11, C teaches
A battery module [0039] comprising: a module housing including a plurality of walls (2, 6) defining an interior; a plurality of battery cells (1) arranged in the interior, each of the plurality of battery cells including a vent (opening covered by 11); and a vent manifold (3 and 11 for each battery, taken together) is connected to each of the plurality of battery cells, the vent manifold including a central passage (33) fluidically connected to the vent in each of the plurality of battery cells [0049] and a fluid inlet (opening covered by 322) that selectively allows passage of an amount of fluid into select ones of the plurality of battery cells [0042], wherein at least two sides of the vent manifold (straight edge portions of 322, see Fig. 5) are formed from a thermally responsive material configured to expand when exposed to pressurized hot gases [0042].
It can be said that the at least two sides are “thermally responsive” because the bottom plate portion melts in response to thermal runaway [0042]. The edges of the bottom plate portion can be expected to expand in a vertical direction either due to gravity or pressure after melting, so it can be said to expand.
C further teaches the battery module may be used in an electric vehicle [0054].
C is silent to the specifics of the vehicle.
J teaches a vehicle (1) comprising a body (entire vehicle in Fig. 13) a drive motor (40) mounted in the body; and a rechargeable energy storage system (10, 20, 30 taken together) including a battery assembly (10) mounted to the body. J does not explicitly teach a including a passenger compartment, however J teaches a driver [0063] which must be occupied inside the vehicle to control it meaning the vehicle must have a passenger compartment. J teaches the battery assembly (10) comprises a housing (100) including a base wall (110) and a plurality of side
walls (112) that are connected to the base wall; a plurality of battery modules (200) arranged in the
housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to implement the battery module of C in the electric vehicle of J. It would have been obvious to do because C teaches that the battery module may be used in an electric vehicle but does not provide further details, and J teaches a design implementing battery modules into a battery assembly for an electric vehicle, so the implementation of the battery module of C into the electric vehicle of J would amount to no more than applying a known design for an electric vehicle in a case where none is specified.
Therefore, claim 11 is unpatentable over C and J.
Regarding claim 12, C teaches the vent manifold includes a first surface (321) coupled to each of the plurality of battery cells, a second surface (part of 31 opposite to 321) extending parallel to and spaced from the first surface, a first side surface, and a second side (first and second side surfaces are the side walls of the interior 33, see Fig. 5) surface extending between and connected to the first surface and the second surface, the fluid inlet being arranged in the first side surface (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, C teaches a thermally responsive hatch (center of 322) disposed over the fluid inlet.
Regarding claim 15, C teaches the vent manifold includes a first hatch support arranged on one side of the fluid inlet and a second hatch support (see annotated Fig. 5 below, portions of 321 indicated with arrows) arranged on a second side of the fluid inlet, the thermally responsive hatch being selectively supported [0047] between the first hatch support and the second hatch support closing the fluid inlet.
PNG
media_image1.png
285
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, C teaches an amount of fluid (4) arranged in the interior of the module housing, the fluid inlet selectively passing a portion of the amount of fluid from the interior to flow through the vent of the select ones of the plurality of battery cells [0047].
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210320337-A1 (C), US-20260031516-A1 (J), and in further view of EP-2883577-A1 (MESLI).
Regarding claim 17, the teachings of C are explained in the rejection of claim 11. C teaches the use of a fluid (4) to suppress thermal runaway [0042], making this a fire extinguishing unit.
C does not teach a fluid additive module.
MESLI teaches a fire extinguisher (1) with a pressurized liquid (7) that comprises water [0022].
MESLI teaches an additive module (11) which adds an additive (13) as is standard in the art to improve
extinguishing qualities [0002]. MESLI teaches the additive module is located on the extinguisher head (3)
in order to not increase the size of the extinguisher and allows for the additive to be replaced without
replacing the whole extinguisher [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant
invention to modify the fire extinguishing unit of C to have the additive module of MESLI in order to
achieve the benefit of improving the extinguishing qualities of the fluid. In doing so, it would have been
obvious to put the additive module as a part of the fluid inlet because doing so would not increase the
size of the fire extinguishing unit significantly and would allow for replacement of the additive without
replacing the full unit.
Doing so would result in the additive being added in a specific quantity to the fluid passing
through the vent manifold of one of the plurality of battery cells. The content of the instant claim 17 is
unpatentable over this combination.
Regarding claim 18, MESLI teaches the fluid additive module is mounted to the side of the opening of the fire extinguisher (see Fig. 3). In the implementation of the additive module to the fire extinguishing unit of C, the additive would therefore have to be attached to one of the first side surface and the second side surface over the fluid inlet.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights