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 .
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.
(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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singer et al. (US 2020/0152930 A1; “Singer ‘930”).
Claim 1: Singer ’930 discloses an outer casing (enclosure 210) comprising: a housing configured to house a battery (battery cell compartment 240 housing battery cells 225, [0030]); a gas adsorbing unit disposed outside the housing (exhaust chamber 241, which is separate from and “disposed between the battery cell compartment and the exterior,” [0027], [0030]–[0031]); the gas adsorbing unit including an adsorbent capable of adsorbing a first gas generated inside the housing (second filter material 252, an activated carbon or charcoal disposed in the exhaust chamber that removes toxic, flammable, and malodorous constituents of the thermal-runaway gas, [0025], [0032], [0034]); and a first valve configured to discharge the first gas from the gas adsorbing unit to outside of the outer casing (the vent and outer vent openings 215 from exhaust chamber 241 to the exterior, providing “pressure-induced venting of gas,” [0003], [0031]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the present specification ([0073], describing the first valve as a pressure valve activated when the internal pressure exceeds the outside atmospheric pressure), the sealed-except-for-the-vent, pressure-induced discharge of Singer ’930 corresponds to the recited first valve.
Claim 2: The outer vent openings 215 (first valve) are connected to and form part of the exhaust chamber 241 (gas adsorbing unit) and discharge to the exterior ([0031]), satisfying the limitation that the first valve is connected to the gas adsorbing unit.
Claim 3: Singer ’930 teaches that the vent opening into the exhaust chamber and the vent opening from the exhaust chamber are located at opposite sides of the enclosure ([0028]); the outer vent opening 215 (first valve) is therefore disposed at an end portion of the exhaust chamber 241 (gas adsorbing unit).
Claim 4: Singer ’930 discloses that the gas adsorbing unit (exhaust chamber 241) is disposed at a bottom of the outer casing (enclosure 210). As depicted in the figures of Singer ’930, the exhaust chamber 241 occupies the lower portion of the enclosure 210 beneath the battery cell compartment 240 ([0030]–[0031]); the limitation that the gas adsorbing unit is disposed at a bottom of the outer casing is therefore anticipated.
Claim 5: Singer ’930 discloses a discharge space disposed between the housing (battery cell compartment 240) and the gas adsorbing unit (exhaust chamber 241) in the direction in which the first gas flows. The first gas passes from the battery cell compartment 240 into the exhaust chamber 241 through the intermediate vent opening(s) and the region leading thereto ([0031]), and is thereby guided into the gas adsorbing unit through the discharge space.
Claim 6: The battery cell compartment 240 (housing) and the exhaust chamber 241 (gas adsorbing unit) are in communication with each other through one or more intermediate vent openings ([0031]).
Claim 19: The adsorbent of Singer ’930 is activated carbon ([0025], 0034]).
Claim 20: Singer ’930 discloses a battery module (battery pack 200) comprising the outer casing of claim 1 and a battery (rechargeable battery cells 225) disposed in the housing (battery cell compartment 240) ([0030]).
Claim 23: Singer ’930 discloses the same structure under the alternative nomenclature of this claim: a battery housing (battery cell compartment 240); an adsorbent housing disposed outside the battery housing and filled with an adsorbent (exhaust chamber 241 containing activated carbon 252, [0027], [0032]); and a first valve configured to discharge the first gas from the adsorbent housing to the outside (outer vent openings 215, [0031]).
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 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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer et al. (US 2020/0152930 A1; “Singer ‘930”) and further in view of Hermann et al. (US 2011/0174556 A1; “Hermann ’556”).
Claims 7 and 9: Hermann ’556 teaches at least one communication channel (perforations 115, 511, 513) that brings the enclosure interior into communication with the cavity, wherein each perforation may include a one-way valve, and teaches a plurality of such perforations ([0008], [0039]–[0040]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide the intermediate vent opening of Singer ’930 as one or more such valved communication channels in order to control the passage of the first gas into the gas adsorbing unit as taught by Hermann ‘556.
Claim 8: With Singer ’930 so modified to include the second valve, disposing that second valve at a bottom of the housing would have been an obvious matter of design choice and rearrangement of parts, predictably promoting the downward collection and discharge of the generated gas into the gas adsorbing unit, consistent with the bottom placement of the gas adsorbing unit (exhaust chamber 241) already disclosed in Singer ’930.
Claim 10: Hermann ’556 teaches that the exhaust-port valve (803) is a pressure-equalization valve that opens beyond a preset opening pressure ([0008], [0044]) and that the perforations may be sealed with a layer designed to fail at a preset pressure ([0040]); both the first and second valves are therefore pressure valves. Setting the first-valve opening pressure P1 at or above the second-valve opening pressure P2 (P1 ≥ P2) would have been an obvious design choice, predictably causing the first gas to enter and reside in the gas adsorbing unit, where it is treated, before discharge.
Claims 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer ’930 in view of Meng et al. (US 2020/0368565 A1; “Meng ’565”).
Claim 11: Singer ’930 discloses the outer casing of claim 1 but does not disclose a third valve for introducing a second gas to the housing. Meng ’565 discloses a power battery pack that is a closed installation isolated from external air, in which an inert-gas injection pipe is arranged at the top end inside the power battery pack ([0004]); an inert-gas storage device is arranged outside the power battery pack, is connected to the inert-gas injection pipe, and stores an inert gas ([0005]); and a pressure detector and an inert-gas injection control switch — an electropneumatic valve — are arranged in turn on the pipeline through which the inert-gas storage device discharges the inert gas into the power battery pack ([0006]–[0007]). The inert-gas injection control switch (electropneumatic valve) of Meng ’565, which is opened to inject the inert gas into the power battery pack to introduce an inert gas into the housing and thereby displace oxygen and suppress or extinguish combustion of the gas generated within the housing during a thermal event ([0006]–[0007], [0011, 0014]), reads on a third valve for introducing a second gas to the housing. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide the outer casing of Singer ’930 with the inert-gas introduction arrangement of Meng ’565 in order to introduce an inert gas into the housing and thereby displace oxygen and suppress or extinguish combustion of the gas generated within the housing during a thermal event.
Claim 12: The inert-gas injection control switch is arranged on the pipeline connecting the inert-gas storage device to the power battery pack, the inert-gas storage device being a container that stores the second gas ([0005]–[0006]).
Claim 13: Meng ’565 discloses that the inert gas is introduced into the power battery pack through the inert-gas injection pipe arranged at the top end inside the power battery pack ([0004]), so that the second gas is introduced at an upper portion of the housing, reading on the third valve being disposed at an upper portion of the housing.
Claim 14: The second gas contains an inert gas, Meng ’565 disclosing that the inert gas is nitrogen or carbon dioxide ([0008]).
Claims 15, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer ’930 in view of Osada (US 2020/0119358 A1; Osada ‘358).
Claim 21: Singer ’930 discloses the battery module of claim 20 but does not disclose that the battery contains a sulfide solid electrolyte (claim 21) or that the first gas contains hydrogen sulfide (claim 15). Osada ’358 discloses a sulfide all-solid-state battery comprising a sulfide solid electrolyte, for example 75Li2S–25P2S5 ([0069], [0105]). Osada ’358 teaches that such an all-solid-state battery attains a high energy density through the use of a solid electrolyte in place of a liquid electrolyte containing an organic solvent ([0003]), and recognizes that a sulfide all-solid-state battery generates hydrogen sulfide when the sulfide solid electrolyte contacts moisture in the air ([0023]). Osada ’358 establishes the energy-density advantage of an all-solid-state battery employing a sulfide solid electrolyte in place of a liquid organic-solvent electrolyte ([0003]). In view of that established advantage, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to construct the battery of Singer ’930 with a sulfide solid electrolyte as taught by Osada ’358 in order to obtain that high energy density, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 15: Osada ’358 recognizes that the resulting sulfide all-solid-state battery generates hydrogen sulfide upon contact with moisture ([0023]). The first gas generated inside the housing of the Singer ’930 / Osada ’358 combination therefore contains hydrogen sulfide, which the activated carbon and zeolite adsorbent of Singer ’930 is capable of adsorbing. Osada ’358 does not teach away from the combination: rather than disparaging hydrogen sulfide, it accepts hydrogen sulfide generation as an incident of adopting a sulfide solid electrolyte and addresses it by gas adsorption ([0023], [0027]–[0028]).
Claim 16: Singer ‘930 discloses the outer casing of claim 1, including a gas adsorbing unit whose adsorbent – an activated carbon and a zeolite ([0025, [0033]-[0034]) – adsorbs the first gas, but does not disclose an adsorbent selected from the alkaline materials recited in claim 16. Osada ‘358 discloses a sulfide all-solid-state battery provided with a basic material that adsorbs acidic gas generated within the battery, the basic material being selected from a group that includes sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, sodium hydrogen carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, and calcium hydroxide ([0040]), and teaches that the basic material captures the acidic gas (hydrogen sulfide) generated from the electrode layers ([0027]-[0028]). It would have been obvious for someone having an ordinary skill in the art to form the adsorbent of Singer ‘930 from a basic material taught by Osada ‘358 – for example, NaOH, Mg(OH)2, or Ca(OH)2 in order to neutralize the acidic constituents of the thermal runaway gas, achieving the predictable result of adsorbing the first gas generated inside the housing.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer ’930 in view of Sakaida et al. (US 2020/0328468 A1; “Sakaida ’468”).
Claim 22: Singer ’930 discloses the battery module of claim 20 but does not disclose the halide solid-electrolyte chemistry of claim 22. Sakaida ’468 discloses an all-solid secondary battery whose electrolyte may be a halide solid electrolyte represented by Li3-3δY1+δ-aMaCl6-x-yBrxIy, where M is Al, Sc, Ga, or Bi ([0024]–[0025], claim 1). This halide solid electrolyte reads on Formula 1 (Li α M β X γ), where M includes metal elements other than lithium (Y, Al, Sc, Ga, Bi) and X includes Cl, Br, and I, with α, β, and γ each greater than 0. Sakaida ’468 teaches that the halide solid electrolyte provides high lithium-ion conductivity and improved thermal stability and, being sulfur-free, does not generate hydrogen sulfide ([0033]–[0034], [0167]–[0168]). In view of these established advantages, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the halide solid electrolyte of Sakaida ’468 in the battery of Singer ’930 in order to obtain the high lithium-ion conductivity and improved safety as taught.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer ‘930 in view of Wynn et al. (US 2020/0152941 A1; “Wynn ‘941”).
Claim 17: Singer ’930 discloses the outer casing of claim 1 housing a rechargeable lithium-ion battery (battery cells 225, [0030]) but does not expressly specify the composition of the first gas. Wynn ’941 recognizes that, when a lithium-ion battery cell enters thermal runaway, it vents a gas that is flammable and that is corrosive primarily due to hydrogen fluoride ([0003]). The hydrogen fluoride so recognized in lithium-ion thermal-runaway vent gas is generated by hydrolysis of the fluorophosphate species — phosphorus pentafluoride (PF5) and phosphoryl fluoride (POF3) — formed upon decomposition of the LiPF6 electrolyte salt; these species are compounds that generate a hydrogen halide (hydrogen fluoride) by hydrolysis, that is, halogen gas precursors within the meaning of claim 17. It would have been obvious to have used Singer’s venting system with Wynn’s hydrogen fluoride generating batteries because Wynn teaches that the HF needs to be vented.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer ’930 in view of Wynn ‘941 and Nakashima et al. (US 2020/0023336 A1; “Nakashima ‘336”).
Claim 18: As established in the rejection of claim 17 above, the first gas generated inside the housing of Singer ’930 contains halogen gas precursors (PF5 and POF3) that yield a hydrogen halide on hydrolysis (Wynn ’941, [0003]). Singer ’930 discloses an activated-carbon-and-zeolite adsorbent but does not disclose an adsorbent selected from the group recited in claim 18. Nakashima ’336 discloses a halogen-gas removing agent comprising a sulfur-containing reducing agent and teaches that the reducing agent is a thiosulfate such as sodium thiosulfate ([0020], [0067]), which decomposes and fixes a halogen-based gas so as to prevent its re-separation ([0011]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide the adsorbent of the gas adsorbing unit of Singer ’930 as the sodium thiosulfate of Nakashima ’336 in order to decompose and fix the halogen-containing constituents of the first gas, achieving the predictable result of adsorbing the first gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATEF A SHAT whose telephone number is (571)270-0364. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/ATEF A SHAT/Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights