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 Interpretation
The language “longitudinal direction, width direction, and height direction” of the claims are taken in view of the specification and drawings. Additionally, the claims use two sets of directions, (1) with respect to the battery cells and (2) with respect to the pack housing, which is confusing because, for example, the unspecified term “longitudinal direction” corresponds to two different directions.
The longitudinal direction of the pack housing best corresponds to the relative X (or first) direction of figure 2, or the direction in which each battery cell is placed relative to each other, and the width direction of the pack housing corresponds to the Y direction of figure 2, or the direction in which an individual battery cell lies, and the height direction of the pack housing corresponds to the Z direction of figure 2, or the direction away from the base of the housing.
The longitudinal direction, or the longitudinal direction of the battery cells best corresponds to the relative Y direction of figure 2, or the direction in which an individual battery cell lies, the width direction, or the width direction of the battery cells corresponds to the X (or first) direction of figure 1 or 2, or the direction in which each battery cell is placed relative to each other, and the height direction, or the height direction of the battery cells corresponds to the Z direction of figure 2, or the direction away from the base of the housing.
The ‘gas guide portion’ of claims 3 through 6 is taken in view of the specification to mean a physical tube or pipe connecting the mouth of the venting hole of the housing to the face of the battery cell, surrounding the safety valve or venting portion of the battery cell.
The ‘groove portion’ of claim 7 is taken in view of the specification and drawings as a beveled, raised, or depressed surface on the lower plate, on the opposite surface of the lower plate with respect to the gas guide portion.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: "gas guide portion has a length in a direction, parallel to the venting hole" should read "gas guide portion has a length in a direction parallel to the venting hole". 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 1-2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Itoi et al. (US Publication Number 20120164490 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Itoi et al. teach a battery pack (battery module 200, Figure 2, [0017] and [0048]), comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (plurality of cells 100, Figure 2, [0049] and [0050]);
a pack housing (case 20, [0049] and [0050]) in which a plurality of battery cells are disposed in a longitudinal direction (Figures 20-22), the pack housing including a venting hole (openings 30a, Figures 2 and 3, [0050]) and
a gas discharge passage (exhaust duct 60, [0050]) communicating with the venting hole ([0050], last sentence), and configured to discharge gas discharged through the venting portion externally (vents 8a, Figures 2 and 3, [0049] and [0050]),
wherein the gas discharge passage includes a body portion (first space 61, Figure 2, [0051]) coupled to the pack housing (between the external plate 21 and the flat plate 30, Figure 2, [0051]), and
a main passage (second space 62, Figure 2, [0051]) connected to the body portion, and having a form of a tube extending in a longitudinal direction of the pack housing (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Itoi et al. teach the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the plurality of battery cells comprise the venting portion in at least one side in a longitudinal direction (Figure 21), wherein the plurality of the venting holes (openings 30a) are provided in at least one side in a width direction (Figure 21) of the pack housing to correspond to each of the plurality of battery cells in the longitudinal direction of the pack housing (Figure 21), and the plurality of battery cells are disposed to be adjacent to the venting hole (opening 30a) in a state in which the venting hole is positioned in the width direction of the pack housing (Figure 21). See annotated figure 21 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
512
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 21 of Itoi et al. depicting the opening 30a in a width direction of the housing, which is oriented out of the page or towards the reader.
Regarding Claim 8, Itoi et al. teach the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the gas discharge passage further comprises an extension portion (second exhaust duct 67, [0120]) extending from the main passage (Figures 23 and 25), and the gas discharged through the venting portion is discharged externally through an exhaust port of the discharge passage ([0121]).
Regarding Claim 9, Itoi et al. teach the battery pack of claim 8, wherein the gas discharge passage further comprises a first extension portion (second exhaust duct 67, [0120]) extending from the main passage in a longitudinal direction of the pack housing (Figures 22 and 23).
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoi et al. (US Publication Number 20120164490 A1) in view of Kim (US 2018/0062133 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Itoi et al. teach the battery pack of claim 2. Itoi et al. do not teach that the battery pack further comprises: a gas guide portion disposed between the venting portion and the venting hole, and guiding the gas discharged from the venting portion to the venting hole.
However, Kim teaches a battery pack including a plurality of cells adjacent to a chamber ([0005]-[0006]), wherein the chamber includes a gas guide (pressure introducing tube 25, figure 9, [0055]) disposed between the venting portion (pre-vent hole 101A) and the venting hole (open section where gas enters the chamber 21), and guiding the gas discharged from the venting portion to the venting hole, which serves to prevent an internal pressure loss of the cell from being generated ([0056], last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the battery pack of Itoi et al. to include a gas guide portion to prevent gas from escaping from the battery cell into the case/enclosure, as taught by Kim.
PNG
media_image2.png
518
333
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 9 of Kim, depicting the gas guide portion (25) and the height direction of the housing
Regarding Claim 4, Itoi et al. teach the battery pack of claim 3 in view of Kim, wherein the venting hole is formed in a height direction of the pack housing, and the gas guide portion has a length in a direction, parallel to the venting hole (See Figure 9 of Kim above).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoi et al. (US Publication Number 20120164490 A1) in view of Kim (US 2018/0062133 A1) as applied to claims 3-4 above, and further in view of Herron et al. (US 2012/0231306 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Itoi et al. teach the battery pack of claim 3 in view of Kim, but Itoi et al. do not teach that the pack housing comprises a lower plate; and a guide bar disposed on the lower plate, the guide bar including the venting hole, wherein the gas guide portion is coupled to the venting hole.
However, Herron et al. teach a battery pack venting system to minimize the effects of thermal runaway within a battery pack (Abstract), and the system is comprised of a sealed battery pack enclosure holding a plurality of batteries. Herron et al. teach that the pack housing comprises a lower plate (battery pack bottom member 707, [0043]); and a guide bar (see annotated figure 8 below) disposed on the lower plate, the guide bar including the venting hole (see annotated figure below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the battery pack of Itoi et al. in view of Kim to include a lower plate with a guide bar disposed on the lower plate, including the venting holes, to manufacture a housing capable of minimizing the effects of thermal runaway as taught by Herron et al.
Herron do not teach a gas guide portion coupled to the venting hole; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the gas guide portion of Kim with the lower plate and guide bar disposed on the lower plate (including the venting hole) to bridge the venting hole with the venting portion of the battery cells to minimize the effects of thermal runaway as taught by Herron et al. and to prevent internal pressure loss of the battery cells in to the housing as taught by Kim. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. (see MPEP § 2143, A.). The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. (see MPEP § 2143.02).
PNG
media_image3.png
417
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Herron et al., depicting the limitations of claim 5
Regarding Claim 6, Itoi et al. teach the battery pack of claim 5 in view of Kim and further in view of Herron et al. Itoi et al. and Kim do not teach the battery pack wherein the gas guide portion comprises a first portion including an inclined surface, and facing the venting portion; and a second portion including a straight surface, and coupled to the venting hole.
However, Kim teaches the battery pack wherein the gas guide portion’s first portion is a straight surface facing the venting portion, and the gas guide portion’s second portion is an inclined surface coupled to the venting hole (Figure 9).
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have changed the form or shape of the gas guide portion, without any new or unexpected results, as an engineering design choice.
Regarding Claim 7, Itoi et al. teach the battery pack of claim 5 in view of Kim and further in view of Herron et al., but they do not teach the lower plate comprises a groove portion in a surface opposite to a surface on which the guide bar is disposed. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The lower plate taught by Herron et al. could be modified to have a groove portion as an engineering design choice to fit other components below the groove portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the lower plate taught by Herron et al. to have a groove portion opposite to the surface where the guide bar is disposed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoi et al. (US Publication Number 20120164490 A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2023/0395930 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Itoi et al. teach the battery pack of claim 1, but they do not teach that the gas discharge passage further comprises a backflow prevention valve so that gas flowing into the gas discharge passage flows in one direction.
However, Sasaki et al. teach of a valve structure for a power storage device (check valve [0006]) that is a one-way valve and prevents backflow, opening up to release gas once the internal pressure increases ([0009] and Claim 1), which prevents air, water vapor, or other contaminants from infiltrating the battery cell pouch ([0006]). The check valve may be an outlet facing the external space ([0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the gas discharge passage to comprise a backflow prevention valve, or a check valve, to ensure one way flow of gas and prevent contaminants from infiltrating the battery cells, as taught by Sasaki et al.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Itoi et al. (US Publication Number 20120164490 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Itoi et al. teach the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the gas discharged through the venting portion is discharged to a side surface (Figure 21 depicts the venting portions on side surfaces of the battery cells), and they further teach the use of battery packs in vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the battery pack of claim 1 taught by Itoi et al. in a vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW N KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9169. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00am-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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ANDREW KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights