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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Group A in the reply filed on 3/26/26 is acknowledged.
The applicant has withdrawn claims 16-20 as being drawn to the non-elected Invention II.
The examiner additionally withdraws claim 9.
Claim 9 draws support from paragraph [0054] and Figs. 8A-B describing the embodiment that the examiner designated Group B in the requirement for restriction. This is therefore withdrawn as the applicant has elected Group A.
Claims 9, 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/26/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
34, which is described in the specification as an “enclosure assembly” [0037].
94, which is described in the specification as “a thermal barrier base” [0049].
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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, “project” should read “projects”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a tapered end portion” in both line 2 and line 3. This makes the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if these are the same tapered end portion or different end portions.
The examiner is choosing to interpret, in view of the specification and drawings, that these are different end portions.
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, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20190221798-A1 (E).
Regarding claim 1, E teaches a traction battery pack assembly (10), comprising: an enclosure assembly (100) that provides an interior area (volume encompassed by two end plates (130); a cell stack (120) within the interior area, the cell stack having a plurality of battery cells (110) disposed along a cell stack axis (see any of Fig. 2-4c), each battery cell within the plurality of battery cells includes at least one terminal tab (111) that projects outward from the cell stack axis; and a thermal barrier (210, “carrier”) within the interior area, the thermal barrier having a plurality of fingers (211) spaced from each other to provide at least one slot that receives a portion of the at least one terminal tab (see Fig. 4b).
Regarding claim 2, E teaches the plurality of fingers includes at least one first finger on a first side of the cell stack, and at least one second finger on an opposite, second side of the cell stack.
See Fig. 4a, which is an exploded view of the pack assembly that shows that there is a carrier (210) on either side of the cell stack. This means that the two carriers taken together comprise the thermal barrier, and that there is a plurality of first fingers on one side of the cell stack and a plurality of second fingers on another side of the cell stack, which teaches the requirements of the instant claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, E shows in Fig. 2, which is an exploded view of the enclosure assembly (100), wherein the individual cell stacks (120) are most clearly shown. The first cell stack may be the far left cell stack and the second may be the next one to the right of that.
Therefore, E teaches the cell stack is a first cell stack, and further comprising at least one second cell stack within the interior area.
Regarding claim 14, E teaches a thermal barrier (210, “carrier”) within the interior area, the thermal barrier having a plurality of fingers (211) spaced from each other to provide a pluralities of slots, each of the slots within the plurality of slots receive a portion of the a portion of at least one terminal tab that extends from a battery cell (110) (see Fig. 4b).
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.
Claims 3-8, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20190221798-A1 (E), in view of US-20200161727-A1 (P).
Regarding claim 3, the teachings of E are explained in the rejections of claims 1 and 2.
E does not teach a thermal barrier base from which the first and second fingers extend.
P teaches an energy storage system (18) comprising foam thermal interface members (26) extending from a heat sink (22). The foam thermal interface members extend parallel from each other in one direction while the heat sink runs perpendicular to the foam thermal interface members (Fig. 2). This means the thermal barrier base is disposed along a third side of the cell stack. P teaches the heat sink and thermal interface members help prevent thermal runaway in the energy storage system [0040] by absorbing heat released from the cells (20-1, 20-2) and preventing it from reaching adjacent cells [0043]. This makes the heat sink a thermal barrier base because it helps prevent the spread of heat from cell to cell.
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 enclosure assembly of E to have the thermal barrier base of P in order to achieve the benefit of preventing thermal runaway in the cell stack of E. It would have been obvious to do because doing so would amount to no more than combining inventions known in the art of battery packs which function the same together as they do separately in order to achieve a known benefit of preventing thermal runaway with a reasonable chance of success.
In the process of doing so, the thermal barrier base would be located perpendicular to the two pluralities of fingers of E because the it is shown as being above or below the cells in Fig. 2 of P, which would constitute being on a third side of the cell stack. The pluralities of fingers would therefore extend from the thermal barrier base because they would contact the base in either configuration.
Therefore, the combination of E and P would teach all of the claim requirements of claim 3 of the instant.
Regarding claim 4, regardless of the positioning of the thermal barrier base of P, any one set of fingers of the pluralities of fingers would form a “C” shape with the thermal barrier base, rendering claim 4 unpatentable over the combination of E and P.
Regarding claim 5, as explained in the rejection of claim 3, the thermal barrier base of E and P would be perpendicular to the pluralities of fingers, so the third side the thermal barrier base is located on must be transverse to the first and second sides. Therefore, claim 5 is unpatentable over the combination of E and P.
Regarding claim 6, E teaches each finger has a tapered end (212).
In the implementation of the thermal barrier base of P in cell enclosure of E, as stated in the rejection of claim 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had to elect to place the thermal barrier base above or below the cell array.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the thermal barrier base opposite from the tapered ends of the pluralities of fingers because doing so would amount to no more than selecting from finite number of options for the orientation of the thermal barrier base with a reasonable chance of arriving at this configuration without undue experimentation.
Therefore, claim 6 of the instant is unpatentable over the combination of E and P because a configuration where the thermal barrier base is located opposite of the tapered end would mean that the first and second fingers extend from the thermal barrier base to the tapered end portions.
Regarding claim 7, the teachings of E are explained in the rejections of claims 1-2, and the teachings of the combination of E and P are explained in the rejection of claim 3.
The combination of E and P does not teach the two pluralities of fingers are made from a different material than that of the thermally conductive base.
P teaches the foam thermal interface members are made of a closed-cell foam [0011]. P teaches the benefit of this material is that it’s lightweight while still being thermally conductive [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to form the first and second pluralities of fingers of E out of the closed-cell foam of P in order to achieve the benefit of making the pluralities of fingers lightweight. It would have been obvious to do because E discusses that lighter weight battery modules are desirable [0004], which means there was a known motivation to seek to modify the parts of the battery pack assembly of E to be lighter.
P further teaches the thermal barrier assembly comprises an electrical isolation layer (40) which is formed from PET [0059]. The combination of E and P as described in the rejection of claim 3 involves adding then entire heat sink of P to the cell enclosure of E, so the thermal barrier base would be made of a different material than that of the pluralities of fingers, rendering claim 7 of the instant unpatentable.
Regarding claim 8, as explained in claim 7, the first material which makes up the pluralities of fingers is a closed-cell foam, and the second material making up the thermal barrier base is PET, which is a polymer-based material. This renders claim 8 of the instant unpatentable over the combination of E and P.
Regarding claim 10, the teachings of E are explained in the rejections of claim 1.
The combination of E and P does not teach the thermal barrier is a closed cell foam
P teaches foam thermal interface members (26) are made of a closed-cell foam [0011]. P teaches the benefit of this material is that it’s lightweight [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to form the first and second pluralities of fingers of E out of the closed-cell foam of P in order to achieve the benefit of making the pluralities of fingers lightweight. It would have been obvious to do because E discusses that lighter weight battery modules are desirable [0004], which means there was a known motivation to seek to modify the parts of the battery pack assembly of E to be lighter.
This would mean the thermal barrier is a closed cell foam, rendering claim 10 unpatentable over the combination of E and P.
Regarding claim 15, the teachings of E are explained in the rejections of claim 14.
The combination of E and P does not teach the thermal barrier is a closed cell foam
P teaches foam thermal interface members (26) are made of a closed-cell foam [0011]. P teaches the benefit of this material is that it’s lightweight [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to form the thermal barrier of E out of the closed-cell foam of P in order to achieve the benefit of making the thermal barrier lightweight. It would have been obvious to do because E discusses that lighter weight battery modules are desirable [0004], which means there was a known motivation to seek to modify the parts of the battery pack assembly of E to be lighter.
This would mean the thermal barrier is a closed cell foam, rendering claim 15 unpatentable over the combination of E and P.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20190221798-A1 (E), in view of DE-102014019075-A1 (M).
Regarding claim 12, the teachings of E are explained in the rejection of claim 1.
E further teaches that the battery cells in the cell stack are pouch-type battery cells [0008].
E does not teach the battery cells have a crimped edge that projects outward from the cell axis and is received by the slots of the thermal barrier.
M teaches pouch-type battery cells (10) with a crimped electrical contact elements (13, 14) located at an edge of the cell (see Fig. 2). These crimped elements are therefore a part of a circumferential edge and form a crimped edge. M teaches the battery cell has a setpoint opening location (15) that allows vent gas to exit into vent guide (21) when the pressure in the cell exceeds a certain value [0034], [0041]. M teaches the setpoint opening is located along the contact (13, see Fig 2.). This configuration allows thermal runaway to be controlled and explosions to be prevented [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to use the pouch-type cells of M in the battery pack assembly of E in order to allow for the prevention of thermal runaway and explosion in the battery pack assembly. It would have been obvious to do so because it would amount to no more than the substitution of a known design for a pouch-type battery cell in place of another pouch-type battery cell in order to achieve a known benefit of preventing explosion and thermal runaway.
E teaches the terminal tabs are received by the slots formed in the thermal barrier as explained in the rejection of claim 1. The electrical contact elements, which make up the crimped edge, would therefore by received by the slots, rendering claim 12 unpatentable over the combination of E and M.
Regarding claim 13, M teaches when the electrical elements 13 and 14 are crimped together, the contacts both extend a portion after the point where they are crimped (see annotated Fig. 4 below). This means the plurality of electrical tabs extend through the crimped edges, rendering claim 13 unpatentable over the combination of E and M.
PNG
media_image1.png
574
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights