BATTERY ARRAY THERMAL BARRIER WITH DEFLECTOR HOODS
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 Amendment
In response to communication filed on 7/20/2026:
Claims 1, 2, and 4 have been amended; claim 3 has been canceled. Claims 20-26 has been added.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 102 have been upheld.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been partially withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “Kullberg does not disclose these features. Kullberg describes two states for its flap. In the first, the flap "may be entirely released from the cover layer/coating," and so covers nothing and redirects nothing. In the second, the flap may "open like a door" to open a ventilation passage through which gases escape upward and are "released above the structure." Kullberg's open position is thus a cleared passage that permits unobstructed upward escape; Kullberg does not describe or depict a configured open position in which the deflector hood remains attached and positioned in the flow so as to redirect the vent byproducts from a first direction to a second, different direction against an underside of the hood. To whatever extent Kullberg's door-type flap may overlap its opening while transiting to the open position, a transient geometry during opening is not a disclosure of the recited open position, and in any event Kullberg's flap swings out of the flow path rather than turning the flow - the recited redirection from a first direction to a second, different direction is neither described nor inherent, particularly given Kullberg's alternative in which the flap is entirely released.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Fig. 5 of Kullberg et al. does not disclose the flap covering and redirecting nothing. As stated by Applicant and disclosed throughout Kullberg, the flap is “partially attached” to the cover layer/coating and opens like a door. Paragraph 0028 discloses the flap may open by a pressure increase. Further, paragraph 0038 discloses the flap can be “bent”.
The Applicant discloses: “The Office maps the recited redirection to Kullberg's disclosure of "a flow of gases going in one direction" (10112; FIG. 5). A flow proceeding in a single direction is the opposite of a redirection from a first direction to a different second direction, and the cited passage says nothing of a hood that remains attached and partially covers an aperture. “
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Fig. 5 shows the vent curving in from one direction by the flap into another. The claims do not specify how the first and second direction are in relation with each other.
The Applicant discloses: “Claim 4 is separately patentable for at least the following additional reason. Claim 4 recites that the open position is a fully-open position in which the deflector hood partially covers the aperture. Claim 4 thus specifies that the deflector hood continues to partially cover the aperture, and continues to redirect the vent byproducts against its underside, even at the position of maximum opening. Kullberg discloses no such position. Kullberg's flap opens either by being "entirely released from the cover layer/coating" or by swinging clear "like a door" to provide an unobstructed ventilation passage through which gases escape upward; in either case Kullberg's most-open state is a cleared passage, not a position in which the flap still overlies the aperture to redirect the flow.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Further, paragraph 0038 discloses the flap can be “bent”. This would provide a partial cover.
The Applicant discloses: “Claim 11 is separately patentable. Claim 11 recites that the deflector hood guides flow moving away from the cell stack axis to move along the cell stack axis. Kullberg's structure is disposed on top of the cell pack, and Kullberg describes its cells as releasing gases upward and out above the structure. Kullberg does not disclose guiding flow that moves away from the cell stack axis so that it instead moves along the cell stack axis. The rejection's citation to FIGS. 3 and 5 is a conclusory reference to the presence of vented gas and does not show the recited guiding function. The flap in Kullberg is certainly not "configured to guide flow moving away from the cell stack axis to move along the cell stack axis." The flap is not configured to guide flow in any direction.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. The vent is expelled into a volume above the cells (Fig. 1, element 103). Further, paragraph 0038 discloses the flap can be bent. This would yield the flow moving away from the cell stack axis to move along the cell stack axis being that “bent” essentially yields the same position as the deflector hood.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12 and 13 have been considered persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
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 20-26 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.
Claim 20 discloses each battery cell is configured to expel vent by products in a direction transverse to the cell stack axis. This is not disclosed or even implied in the specification.
Claims 21-26 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for their dependence on claim 20.
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, and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kullberg et al. (WO 2022/008080 A1 using US 2023/0268613 A1 as the point of reference.).
Regarding claim 1, Kullberg et al. teach battery pack assembly (Abstract; Figs. 1 and 2 disclose a battery pack, element 100.), comprising:
a cell stack having a plurality of battery cells (Abstract; Fig. 1, element 118 discloses a plurality of cells.);
a thermal barrier adjacent the cell stack (Paragraph 0092; Figs. 1 and 2 disclose a cover layer/coating, element 120, which comprises a heat-and fire-resistant material and forms a hear-and fire-resistant top surface of the entire top structure, element 104.); and
a plurality of deflector hoods included within the thermal barrier (Paragraph 0092; Fig. 3 discloses the cover layer/coating, element 120, has flaps, element 132.), each deflector hood configured to move from a closed position covering an aperture in the thermal barrier to an open position in response to a flow of vent byproducts against the deflector hood (Paragraph 0099; Fig. 3 discloses the pressure of the gases, element 114, will cause the weakened portion/pre-cut in the cover layer/coating corresponding to the battery cell, element 118a, to rupture or open, forming an opened flap, element 132a, thereby allowing the gases, element 114, to exit the structure, element 104, via the opening left by the opened flap, element 132a.); wherein the deflector hood, in the open position, remains attached to the thermal barrier (Paragraph 0107; Fig. 5, element 130 discloses openings in an electrically conductive layer, element 122, which is part of the top structure. Further, paragraphs 0028 and 0038 disclose when the flap, element 132a, is in the open position, it is attached to the thermal barrier, element 120.), partially covers the aperture such that flow of the vent byproducts passing through the aperture contact an underside of the deflector hood and are redirected from a first direction to a second direction different than the first direction (Paragraph 0038 discloses the flap can be bent from the increased pressure. A bent shape will provide a partial cover. Paragraph 0112; Fig. 5, element 114 discloses a flow of gases curving in another direction different from the initial direction.).
Regarding claim 2, Kullberg et al. teach the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein each deflector hood has an underside facing the plurality of battery cells, the flow of vent byproducts contacting the underside to move the deflector hood from the closed position to the open position (Paragraph 0099; Fig. 3 show a flow of gases, element 114, pushing under the flap, element 132a, opening it to vent.).
Regarding claim 4, Kullberg et al. teach the battery pack assembly of claim 3, wherein the open position is a fully-open position in which the deflector hood partially covers the aperture (Paragraph 0029 disclose the flap may be entirely release from the cover layer/coating upon increase in pressure. Further, paragraph 0038 discloses the flap can be bent which would provide a partial cover.).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Kullberg et al. teach the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein the thermal barrier includes a plurality of scored regions (Paragraph 0107; Fig. 2 discloses the cover layer/coating, element 120, comprises a plurality of weakened portions/pre-cuts, element 124.), each scored region establishing one of the deflector hoods within the plurality of deflector hoods (Paragraph 0107; Fig. 2 disclose the weakened portions/pre-cuts, element 124, are each shaped to form a flap, element 132.); wherein each scored region within the plurality of scored regions is arc-shaped (Fig. 2, element 124 shows C-shaped or arc-shaped.).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Kullberg et al. teach the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein the thermal barrier includes a plurality of cuts (Paragraph 0107; Fig. 2 discloses the cover layer/coating, element 120, comprises a plurality of weakened portions/pre-cuts, element 124.), each cut establishing one of the deflector hoods within the plurality of deflector hoods (Paragraph 0107; Fig. 2 disclose the weakened portions/pre-cuts, element 124, are each shaped to form a flap, element 132.); wherein each cut within the plurality of cuts has a C-shaped profile (Fig. 2, element 124 shows C-shaped or arc-shaped.).
Regarding claim 9, Kullberg et al. teach the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein each deflector hood within the plurality of deflector hoods is hood-shaped (Fig. 2 shows the flaps are C-shaped, element 132, which resembles a hood shape upon opening to vent.).
Regarding claim 10, Kullberg et al. teach the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein the thermal barrier is mica-based (Paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 11, Kullberg et al. teach the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of battery cells are disposed along a cell stack axis (See Fig. 6, element 118), wherein the thermal barrier is adjacent an outboard side of the cell stack (Figs. 5, 6 show element 120 on an outboard side of the cell stack.), the deflector hood configured to guide flow moving away from the cell stack axis to move along the cell stack axis (Figs. 3 and 5, element 114.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 20-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kullberg et al. (WO 2022/008080 A1 using US 2023/0268613 A1 as the point of reference.).
Regarding claim 20, Kullberg et al. teach a battery pack assembly (Abstract; Figs. 1 and 2 disclose a battery pack, element 100.), comprising:
a cell stack having a plurality of battery cells disposed along a cell axis (Abstract; Fig. 1, element 118 discloses a plurality of cells.);
a thermal barrier adjacent the cell stack (Paragraph 0092; Figs. 1 and 2 disclose a cover layer/coating, element 120, which comprises a heat-and fire-resistant material and forms a hear-and fire-resistant top surface of the entire top structure, element 104.); and
a plurality of deflector hoods included within the thermal barrier (Paragraph 0092; Fig. 3 discloses the cover layer/coating, element 120, has flaps, element 132.), each deflector hood configured to move from a closed position covering an aperture in the thermal barrier to an open position in response to a flow of vent byproducts against the deflector hood (Paragraph 0099; Fig. 3 discloses the pressure of the gases, element 114, will cause the weakened portion/pre-cut in the cover layer/coating corresponding to the battery cell, element 118a, to rupture or open, forming an opened flap, element 132a, thereby allowing the gases, element 114, to exit the structure, element 104, via the opening left by the opened flap, element 132a.); wherein the deflector hood, in the open position, remains attached to the thermal barrier (Paragraph 0107; Fig. 5, element 130 discloses openings in an electrically conductive layer, element 122, which is part of the top structure. Further, paragraphs 0028 and 0038 disclose when the flap, element 132a, is in the open position, it is attached to the thermal barrier, element 120.), partially covers the aperture such that flow of the vent byproducts passing through the aperture contact an underside of the deflector hood and are redirected from a first direction to a second direction different than the first direction (Paragraph 0038 discloses the flap can be bent from the increased pressure. A bent shape will provide a partial cover. Paragraph 0112; Fig. 5, element 114 discloses a flow of gases curving in another direction different from the initial direction.).
However, Kullberg et al. do not specifically teach wherein each battery cell is configured to expel vent byproducts in a direction transverse to the cell axis.
Kullberg discloses the flap opens by an increase of pressure within each cell (Paragraph 0028 and Fig. 5). Further, the flap can be bent open while still in contact with the cover (Paragraph 0038). This position is identical to what is disclosed in the present application.
MPEP 2112.01 I: PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Kullberg et al. teach the battery pack assembly of claim 20. Further, they teach wherein each aperture is crescent-shaped and each deflector hood has a fish-scale shape; wherein the plurality of deflector hoods are established by a respective plurality of C-shaped cuts in the thermal barrier (Fig. 2, element 124 shows C-shaped or arc-shaped.).
Regarding claim 24, Kullberg et al. teach the battery pack assembly of claim 20, wherein the thermal barrier comprises mica (Paragraph 0035).
However, Kullberg et al. do not teach wherein the mica is a woven fiber.
MPEP 2112.01 II: COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kullberg et al. (WO 2022/008080 A1 using US 2023/0268613 A1 as the point of reference.) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Chan et al. (US 2018/0138478 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Kullberg et al. teach the battery pack assembly of claim 20. While Kullberg et al. teach wherein the battery cells have a case configured to rupture and provide the vent by products (Paragraph 0028; Fig. 5), they do not disclose the cells are pouch cells.
Chan et al. teach a technique for alleviating explosion propagation from one cell to another cell in a battery module (Abstract). The battery module further comprises an insulation layer (Figs. 4-5, element 410) which comprises perforations (Figs. 4-5, element 411) designed to rupture in the event of an emission of hot gaseous fumes (Paragraph 0027). Further, the insulation film is enclosed in a top cover (Figs. 1, 5, element 114), bottom cover (Figs. 1 and 4, element 116), and at least one sidewall, or endplate (Fig. 1, 4, element 120). Further, the cells can be pouch cells (Paragraph 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kullberg with Chan in order to accommodate various cell designs.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kullberg et al. (WO 2022/008080 A1 using US 2023/0268613 A1 as the point of reference.) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Tsuji et al. (US 2015/0194641 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Kullberg et al. teach the battery pack assembly of claim 20. However, they do not teach wherein comprising a pair of thermal barriers disposed along opposing outboard sides of the cell stack.
Tsuji et al. teach a pair of thermal barriers disposed along opposing outboard sides of the cell stack (Paragraph 0041; Fig. 2 disclose a case 1020 includes a vacuum heat insulation container 1040 and an atmospheric heat insulation lid 1041.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kullberg with Tsuji in order to improve insulation and safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claims 12 and 13 is not taught in the prior art of record.
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 DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 July 29th, 2026
Prosecution Insights