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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4 and 20 contain the phrase “a thermal even” and should read “a thermal event”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Golubkov (EP 3671890 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Golubkov discloses a battery module comprising a container (Figure 3; battery pack housing 210),
a plurality of battery cells within the container (Figure 1; battery cells 10), and
a cover attached to sides of the container and extending in a plane over the plurality of battery cells wherein the cover comprises an inner layer and an outer layer (Figure 3 cover plate 220; cover plate 220 comprises a first layer 230 and a second layer 231 in Figure 4).
Regarding claims 5-8, Golubkov discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Golubkov further discloses wherein the inner layer is attached to the outer layer in at least two fixation locations such as two opposing edges and one or more additional locations along the cover ([0016-0018] laminate is formed through the cover plate and may be permanently assembly by heat, pressure welding or adhesives that can be all along the cover plate and thus reads as many points that are provided throughout the cover such as the edges and points within).
Regarding claims 9-10, Golubkov discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Golubkov further discloses wherein the inner layer is attached to the outer layer by laminating material located between the inner layer and the outer layer, wherein the laminating material comprises an adhesive material, an insulating material or both ([0016-0018]laminate is formed through the cover plate and may be permanently assembly by heat, pressure welding or adhesives).
Regarding claim 13-14, Golubkov discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Golubkov further discloses wherein the inner layer comprises a first material and the outer layer comprises a second material wherein the first and second materials are a metal material ([0018] the first layer being made of an aluminum or aluminum alloy while the second layer is made of a stainless steel).
Claims 1, 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2024/0283085 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a battery module comprising a container (Figure 3; battery pack module frame 200 with end plates 400),
a plurality of battery cells within the container (Figure 3, [0052]), and
a cover attached to sides of the container and extending in a plane over the plurality of battery cells wherein the cover comprises an inner layer and an outer layer (Figure 4; [0095] cover layer 800 being made of three layers such as a barrier layer and refractory layers 820 and 830).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the inner layer comprises a first material and the outer layer comprises a second material ([0097-0099] and claim 16; refractory layers may be made of aluminum, stainless use steel or a clad material and the battery layer can be made of a material such as a thermoplastic material such as polyethylene or polypropylene).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion of the inner layer is larger than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the outer layer ([0097-0099] the refractory layers being read as the outer layers are made of stainless steel or aluminum have a lower thermal expansion than the inner polypropylene or polyethylene).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein a thickness of the inner layer is larger than a thickness of the outer layer (Figure 7; the thickness of the barrier layer 810 is larger than the thickness of the refractory layers 820 and 830).
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.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubkov (EP 3671890 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Golubkov teaches all the claim limitations of claim 1. Golubkov further discloses wherein the cover has a thickness of 0.4 to 5 mm ([0019-0020] a total thickness of the cover plate is between 0.53-5.2 mm). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, Golubkov discloses all the claim 1. Golubkov further discloses wherein the inner layer has a thickness of 0.2-2.5 mm ([0020] second layer having a thickness of 30-200 micrometers and also wants a thickness of less than 300 micrometers for weight purposes and thus the range is 0.03-0.3 mm) and the outer layer has a thickness of 0.1 to 2.5 mm ([0020] first layer having a thickness of 0.5-5 mm). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubkov (EP 3671890 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rhee et al. (US 2023/0268581 A1).
Regarding claim 2-3, Golubkov is silent with respect to a thermal barrier separating a first group of the polarity of battery cells from a second group of the plurality of battery cells and wherein thermal barrier extends upward into the gap towards the cover.
Rhee discloses a battery module and battery pack and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Rhee discloses wherein a plurality of battery cells have one or more thermal barrier assemblies 1300 provided between cell stacks to form internal spaces within the housing with gaps provided between the end of the thermal barrier and the housing in order to prevent heat propagation between adjacent battery cells ([0069-0071; Figure 3; [0047-0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the thermal barrier assembly as taught by Rhee between groups of battery cells to form cell stack groups and to prevent heat propagation between adjacent battery cells. The resulting modification would obvious the limitation of a thermal barrier separating groups of battery cells and would also form a gap between the thermal barrier and the cover. Thus all the claim limitations of claims 2-3 are rendered obvious through the modification.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubkov (EP 3671890 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rabe et al. (US 2020/0180442 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Golubkov discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Golubkov discloses wherein the inner and outer layer are bonded to each other, however, is silent with respect to bonding by roll bonding.
Rabe discloses a battery support of modular construction and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Rabe discloses coupling two sheets together by roll bonding ([0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to use the method taught by Rabe to couple two sheets together by roll bonding to laminate the cover later of Golubkov. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 11 are rendered obvious through the combination.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubkov (EP 3671890 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2023/0387507 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Golubkov discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Golubkov discloses wherein the inner and outer layers may be made of different materials such as aluminum and stainless steel ([0018]). Golubkov is silent with respect to the materials are made of the same material.
Chen discloses a battery and electrical apparatus and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Chen discloses wherein a cover for a battery can be made of various materials such as copper, iron, aluminum, stainless steel, aluminum alloy and plastic and is not particularly limited ([0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the first and second cover sheets of Golubkov to be made of the same material as taught by Chen such as copper or stainless steel as copper and stainless steel are known materials for a cover, thus a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the aluminum sheet to be made of a material such as stainless steel and thus would be made of the same material as the inner layer. Chen discloses that both copper and stainless steel are known materials for a cover and thus all the claim limitations of claim 12 are rendered obvious through the modification. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 15, Golubkov discloses all the claim limitations of claim 14. Golubkov discloses wherein the inner and outer layer may be made of different materials such as aluminum and stainless steel ([0018]). Golubkov is silent with respect to the wherein both inner and outer cover materials are selected from steel, copper and zinc.
Chen discloses a battery and electrical apparatus and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Chen discloses wherein a cover for a battery can be made of various materials such as copper, iron, aluminum, stainless steel, aluminum alloy and plastic and is not particularly limited ([0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the first cover sheet of Golubkov to be made of the material as taught by Chen such as copper or stainless steel as copper and stainless steel are known materials for a cover, thus a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the aluminum sheet to be made of a material such as stainless steel or copper. Chen discloses that both copper and stainless steel are known materials for a cover and thus all the claim limitations of claim 15 are rendered obvious through the modification. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2024/0283085 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (EP 4475308 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Examiner notes that the limitations of claim 4 are an intended use as the limitation “wherein upon occurrence of a thermal event” is based upon the stipulation that a thermal vent is occurring and does not provide any additional structural aspect to the claim. Thus the claim is deemed to be an intended use and is not given patentable weight. In view of compact prosecution, a secondary reference is provided below.
Lee discloses a cover plate having multiple layers wherein the inner layer has a higher thermal expansion coefficient than the outer layer material and discloses a plurality of vent holes within the cover, however, is silent with respect to wherein upon occurrence of a thermal event within one or more of the plurality of battery cells, the covers deforms inward towards the plurality of battery cells.
Kim discloses a battery pack and vehicle and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Kim discloses wherein when a thermal runaway occurs inside the battery pack venting gases move through the pack lid to be discharged to the outside and while this area is generally deformed outward by the venting gases other surrounding portion are deformed inward ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan that the venting region of Lee would have regions that are deformed inwardly when the venting of gasses occur as taught by Kim. Thus all the claim limitations of claims 4 are rendered obvious through the teachings of Lee and Kim.
The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2024/0283085 A1) in view of Kim (EP 4475308 A1) and Rhee et al. (US 2023/0268581 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses a battery module comprising
a container (Figure 3; battery pack module frame 200 with end plates 400),
a plurality of battery cells within the container (Figure 3, [0052]), and
a cover attached to sides of the container and extending in a plane over the plurality of battery cells wherein the cover comprises an inner layer and an outer layer wherein the inner layer is attached to the outer layer in at least two fixation location (Figure 4; [0095] cover layer 800 being made of three layers such as a barrier layer and refractory layers 820 and 830; cover layers are fixed to each other when provided in the casing as they are fixed in place and would not move and thus read as being fixed in at least two locations),
wherein there is a gap between the cover and a top edge of the plurality of battery cells (Figure 7),
wherein the battery cover includes one or more vents to enable gas to pass out of the module (Figure 7; vents).
Lee is silent with respect to a thermal barrier separating a first group of the polarity of battery cells from a second group of the plurality of battery cells and wherein thermal barrier extends upward into the gap towards the cover.
Rhee discloses a battery module and battery pack and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Rhee discloses wherein a plurality of battery cells have one or more thermal barrier assemblies 1300 provided between cell stacks to form internal spaces within the housing with gaps provided between the end of the thermal barrier and the housing in order to prevent heat propagation between adjacent battery cells ([0069-0071; Figure 3; [0047-0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the thermal barrier assembly as taught by Rhee between groups of battery cells to form cell stack groups and to prevent heat propagation between adjacent battery cells. The resulting modification would obvious the limitation of a thermal barrier separating groups of battery cells and would also form a gap between the thermal barrier and the cover. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 20 are rendered obvious through the modification.
Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein upon occurrence of a thermal event” is based upon the stipulation that a thermal vent is occurring and does not provide any additional structural aspect to the claim. Thus the claim is deemed to be an intended use and is not given patentable weight. In view of compact prosecution, a secondary reference is provided below.
Lee discloses a cover plate having multiple layers wherein the inner layer has a higher thermal expansion coefficient than the outer layer material and discloses a plurality of vent holes within the cover, however, is silent with respect to wherein upon occurrence of a thermal event within one or more of the plurality of battery cells, the covers deforms inward towards the plurality of battery cells.
Kim discloses a battery pack and vehicle and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Kim discloses wherein when a thermal runaway occurs inside the battery pack venting gases move through the pack lid to be discharged to the outside and while this area is generally deformed outward by the venting gases other surrounding portion are deformed inward ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan that the venting region of Lee would have regions that are deformed inwardly when the venting of gasses occur as taught by Kim. Thus all the claim limitations of claims 20 are rendered obvious through the teachings of Lee and Kim.
The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rausch (DE102022102859 A1-as cited in the IDS)-discloses a housing cover with integrated shielding for a battery housing and is analogous with the instant invention s being directed towards a battery cover made of a plurality of layers.
Seto et al. (US 2011/0244282 A1)- discloses an electric storage module and device wherein a cover member can be deformed inward of the casing by an external force.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights