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 .
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: Paragraph [0054], line 3, outlets 41. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in lines 2-3 “battery module comprise:” should read --battery module comprises--. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0053], line 5, “in the drawing in the first and second holders” should read --in the drawing of the first and second holders-- . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the electrode assembly” should read --the electrode assemblies--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsushita et al. (US 20230006302 A1), hereinafter “Matsushita”, as cited in the IDS dated 10/02/2024.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Matsushita teaches a battery pack (Matsushita, [0020], lines 1-4) comprising:
Battery cells that may be cylindrical rechargeable lithium ion secondary batteries (Matsushita, [0048], line 1-6).
a discharge valve (corresponding to the claimed venthole) (Matsushita, [0020], lines 5-7)
a battery holder 2 comprising a holding part 22 divided into two parts at a middle position (corresponding to the claimed first and second holders) (Matsushita, [0050], lines 1-5) that arranges battery cells in fixed positions (Matsushita, [0022], lines 1-4)
an outer case 4 (corresponding to the claimed second plate) (Matsushita, [0059], lines 1-4)
a backflow-restricting layer 5 (corresponding to the claimed first plate) (Matsushita, [0045], lines 11-14)
a through-hole 51 on the backflow-restricting layer 5 (corresponding to the claimed outlet) (Matsushita, [0066], lines 1-3)
and cutouts 52 extending radially from the through-hole (corresponding to the claimed hooking piece) (Matsushita, [0066], lines 1-3)
Annotated fig. 7 from Matsushita shows that cutouts 52 further define through-hole 51 by limiting the space for exhausted gas to flow (corresponding to the claimed hooking pieces at least partially defining the outlet). Matsushita further teaches that exhaust gas ejected from the battery cell during thermal runaway is discharged to the inside of the outer case 4 (corresponding to the claimed second plate configured to block an explosion pressure) (Matsushita, [0021], lines 7-13).
PNG
media_image1.png
393
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, annotated fig. 7 from Matsushita above shows two cutouts 52 (corresponding to the plurality of hooking pieces) separated by a distance across through-hole 51.
Regarding claim 4, Matsushita teaches battery cells comprising positive and negative electrodes (Matsushita, [0047], lines 1-2). Matsushita also teaches the backflow-restricting layer 5 may be made of rubber material (Matsushita, [0047], lines 1-2). Since Matsushita teaches that the backflow-restricting layer comprises the cutouts 52 (Matsushita, [0066], lines 1-3), then the cutouts may also comprise a rubber material (corresponding to the claimed elastic material). The examiner notes that "configured to limit discharge of the electrode assembly in a battery cell explosion" is an instance of functional language which only imparts a structure that is capable of doing said function. Annotated fig. 7 from Matsushita above shows two cutouts 52 protruding from through-hole 51, corresponding to the claimed structural limitation of hooking pieces provided in plurality. Annotated fig. 7 from Matsushita also shows cutouts 52 separated by a distance across the through-hole 51, corresponding to the claimed structural limitation of hooking pieces separated by a distance. Since Matsushita’s cutouts are identical to applicant’s hooking pieces, Matsushita’s cutouts would also be capable of performing the recited function.
Regarding claim 5, Matsushita teaches a backflow-restricting layer 5 having cutouts 52 (corresponding to the claimed hooking piece) at a through-hole 51. Annotated fig. 7 from Matsushita above shows two cutouts 52 protruding obliquely from the backflow-restricting layer (corresponding to the inner wall surface) (Matsushita, [0066], lines 1-3). Matsushita further teaches that cutouts 52 at through-hole 51 deform toward the end-surface electrode 1a of the battery cell 1 (Matsushita, [0067], lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 7, Matsushita teaches a battery cell comprising positive and negative electrodes (Matsushita, [0047], lines 1-2). The cutouts 52 comprising an elastic rubber material would naturally flow from the teachings of Matsushita, as previously stated above in the rejection of claim 4 (Matsushita, [0047], lines 1-2; [0066], lines 1-3). The examiner notes that "configured to limit discharge of the electrode assembly in a battery cell explosion" and “configured to be deformed upwardly by a discharge pressure” are instances of functional language which only impart a structure that is capable of doing said function. Matsushita’s cutouts 52 meet the claimed structural limitations for the hooking piece addressed in the rejection of claim 4. Additionally, annotated fig.7 from Matsushita shows cutouts 52 at an angle with respect to the through-hole 51, corresponding to the structural limitation of the hooking piece protrudes obliquely from the inner wall surface. Matsushita also teaches that the cutouts 52 deform toward end-surface electrode 1a (Matsushita, [0067], lines 1-6), corresponding to the claimed structural limitation of the hooking piece protruding toward a corresponding one of the battery cells. Since Matsushita’s cutouts are identical to applicant’s hooking piece, said cutouts would also be capable of performing the recited functions.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US 20230006302 A1), as applied to claims 1-5 and 7 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 115485894 A), hereinafter “Li”, wherein an English machine translation of Li is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches an angle between a baffle 14 (corresponding to the claimed hooking piece) and the axis of a pressure relief vent may range from 20 degrees to 40 degrees (Li, [0025], lines 1-2). Li’s angle range of 20 degrees to 40 degrees overlaps with the instantly claimed hooking piece angle range of 29 degrees to 31 degrees. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Li's baffle angle range to the cutouts of Matsushita, in order to avoid blocking the pressure relief hole (Li, [0026], lines 1-2). In this regard, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of inclination angle within the disclosed range, including a value within the claimed range, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US 20230006302 A1), as applied to claims 1-5 and 7 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 216980798 U), hereinafter “Wang”, wherein an English machine translation of Wang is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches a battery pack comprising an explosion proof valve (Wang, [0004], lines 1-2), wherein the explosion proof valve comprises an opening area with score grooves that can be opened for pressure relief (Wang, [0008], lines 16-18; [0010], lines 2-6). Annotated fig. 1 from Wang below shows opening area 10 comprising scored groves 111, 112, and 113 that define orthographic projections that separates into sections after the valve opens (corresponding to the claimed hooking piece) (Wang, [0047], lines 9-14 & 18-21). Wang also discloses length ranges for the orthographic projections, denoted as “a”, “b”, and “c” in annotated fig. 1 from Wang below (See Table 1 below). Wang teaches that the widths of the scored grooves 111 and 112 are relatively small and can be ignored (Wang, [0047], lines 12-14). Annotated fig. 1 of Wang shows the opening area 10 as an oblong shape (Wang, [0048], line 2) with width “c+b”. Furthermore, example 1 below shows values selected from within the disclosed ranges for “c” and “b” that produce an orthographic projection length that is 30% of the diameter length of the outlet, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 1/3 to 1/4 of a diameter of the outlet. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Wang's orthographic projection ranges to the cutouts of Matsushita, to ensure battery safety (Wang, [0010], lines 2-7). In this regard, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of orthographic projection length within the disclosed range, including a value within the claimed range, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
PNG
media_image2.png
286
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Variable defined by Wang
Disclosed Range
Citation in Wang
a
10 mm – 40 mm
([0010], lines 1-2)
b
15 mm – 50 mm
([0014], lines 1-2)
c
≤ 10 mm
([0011], lines 1-2)
Table 1. Disclosed ranges in Wang for orthographic projection lengths
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
1
:
c
=
8
m
m
;
b
=
19
m
m
;
c
c
+
b
=
0.30
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches lengths “b” and “a” of the orthographic project (corresponding to the claimed first and second widths, respectively) (See Wang annotated Fig. 1 above). Wang also teaches length ranges for “a” and “b”, wherein “a” and “b” may be different lengths (See Table 1 above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Wang's different orthographic projection lengths to the cutouts of Matsushita, to ensure battery safety (Wang, [0010], lines 2-7).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US 20230006302 A1), as applied to claims 1-5 and 7 above, and further in view of Iwama et al. (US 20120135285 A1), hereinafter “Iwama”.
Regarding claim 10, Iwama teaches a battery casing (Iwama, [0039], line 1-2) comprising a protruding portion 13a (corresponding to the claimed friction protrusion) on the bottom of every safety valve 13 (Iwama, [0039], lines 6-10). Fig. 1 from Iwama shows the protruding portion 13a facing a corresponding battery cell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Iwama’s protruding portion to the cutouts of Matsushita, in order to connect the safety valve and positive electrode lead 25, thereby preventing the electrode lead 25 from coming out of the hole portion 17a (Iwama, [0039], lines 10-14).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US 20230006302 A1), and Wang (CN 216980798 U), as applied to claims 8 and 9 above, and further in view of Iwama (US 20120135285 A1), wherein an English machine translation of Wang is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 11, annotated fig. 7 from Matsushita shows two cutouts 52 extending from the through-hole 51 (corresponding to the claimed hooking piece provided in plurality). Matsushita does not teach at least one friction protrusion protruding from each of the surfaces of the hooking pieces facing a corresponding one of the battery cells. However, Iwama teaches a protruding portion 13a (corresponding to the claimed friction protrusion) on the bottom of every safety valve 13 (Iwama, [0039], lines 6-10). Fig. 1 from Iwama shows the protruding portion 13a facing a corresponding battery cell. It would have been obvious to add Iwama's protruding portion to the plurality of cutouts of Matsushita, in order to connect the safety valve and positive electrode lead 25, thereby preventing the electrode lead 25 from coming out of the hole portion 17a (Iwama, [0039], lines 10-14).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US 20230006302 A1), as applied to claims 1-5 and 7 above, and further in view of Rahman et al. (US 20220255158 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Rahman”.
Regarding claim 12, Rahman teaches an energy storage device that may be a battery pack comprising energy storage cells 202b in a cell holder structure 202a (Rahman, [0013], lines 1-10; [0033], lines 7-13; See annotated Fig. 3 below). Rahman also teaches a minimum air gap of 5 mm between the outer casing and at least one cell holder, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 9 mm to 10 mm of distance between a corresponding one of the battery cells and the hooking piece (Rahman, [0013], lines 1-10). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Rahman's air gap range to the battery module of Matsushita, to increase the cooling rate of the energy storage cells (Rahman, [0019], lines 23-26). In this regard, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of air gap distance within the disclosed range, including a value within the claimed range, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim (EP 4220840 A1) teaches a battery safety vent comprising a vent protrusion 142d protruding from the vent bottom 142c towards a battery cell.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel Avina whose telephone number is (571)270-0429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/R.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1734 /JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights