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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 18-20 recite a system where the chamber is connected to the battery stack and second battery stack by way of a conduit and second conduit while also reciting the battery cell stack is within an enclosure that shares a common surface with the chamber, the battery cell stack is in direct contact with the common surface and the valve is at the common surface. There is no support in the original specification, figures nor claims for reciting the combination of both embodiments. The original disclosure only describes two separate embodiments (figure 10 versus figure 6), but never the combination of the two embodiments. There is no support for the combination and the original disclosure does not reasonably convey how one skilled in the art would combine the two embodiments.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7, 11-15 and 18-20 are 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 4 recites the limitation, “a common enclosure” in line 2. It is unclear whether “a common enclosure” of claim 4 is the same or different as “an enclosure” as recited in claim 1, line 15. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “an enclosure” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether “an enclosure” of claim 5 is the same or different as “an enclosure” as recited in claim 1, line 15. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “an enclosure” in line 1. It is unclear whether “an enclosure” of claim 6 is the same or different as “an enclosure” as recited in claim 1, line 15. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 6 recites “a plate”. It is unclear whether “a plate” is the same or different as “a common surface” as recited in claim 1. If it is different, then it is unclear how it can also include the valve. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 11 recites the limitation, “an enclosure” in line 2. It is unclear whether “an enclosure” of claim 11 is the same or different as “an enclosure” as recited in claim 1, line 15. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “an enclosure” in line 16. It is unclear whether “an enclosure” of line 16 is the same or different as “an enclosure” as recited in claim 12, line 3. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 13-17 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
Claims 13 and 14 recite “a divider”. It is unclear whether “a divider” is the same or different as “a common surface” as recited in claim 12. If it is different, then it is unclear how it can also include the valve. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claim 15 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 18 recites “a chamber connected to the battery cell stack by way of a conduit” in line 11, while also reciting “wherein the battery cell stack is within an enclosure that shares a common surface with the chamber, the battery cell stack is in direct contact with the common surface and the valve is at the common surface” in the last three lines of the claim. It is unclear how the battery cell stack and is in direct contact with the common surface that is shared with the chamber while also having a conduit connect the chamber to the battery cell stack. It is also unclear how the valve can both be at the common surface and release the suppressant by way of the conduit. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 19-20 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 18.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5-7 and 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites that the chamber is spaced apart from an enclosure including the battery cell stack, while claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends, requires the enclosure share a common surface with the chamber.
Claim 6 recites a plate separating the chamber from the battery cell stack and valve included with the plate; however, claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends, requires the enclosure share a common surface with the chamber, and therefore, no other plate can separate the chamber, and claim 1 requires the valve be at the common surface and therefore cannot also be included with the plate. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(d) by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 13 recites a further divider that includes the valve; however, claim 12, upon which claim 13 depends, requires the valve be located at the common surface. Claims 14 and 15 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(d) by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0328906) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0405325).
Regarding claim 1, Cho et al. discloses a system configured to suppress thermal runaway in a battery cell (abstract), the system comprising:
a battery cell stack (figure 2, plurality battery cells 101; [0052]);
a chamber configured to store a suppressant that is configured to suppress thermal runaway (figure 2, heat dissipation member 200 with chamber delimited by walls/plates 110 and 210 and stored suppressant/refrigerant 220; [0058]);
and a valve configured to open in response to a thermal runaway condition at the battery cell stack to release the suppressant from the chamber to the battery cell stack (figures 2 sealing member 240; [0062]),
wherein the battery cell stack is within an enclosure that shares a common surface with the chamber, the battery cell stack is in direct contact with the common surface and the valve is at the common surface (figure 2, plates 110, 120 and 130 make up enclosure with plate 210 being common surface in direct contact with battery cell stack 101 and valve 240 located in plate 210; [0058]-[0059]; [0062]).
Although Cho et al. does not specifically state the structure of the battery cells, an operational battery structure would necessarily include cathode electrodes each including a cathode current collector, a cathode active layer arranged on the cathode current collector, and an external connector extending from the cathode current collector; anode electrodes each including an anode current collector, an anode active layer arranged on the anode current collector, and an external connector extending from the anode current collector; and separators, as evidenced by Kim et al. (figure 1B, #111, 112 and 113; [0056]-[0059]; [0061]; [0065]-[0066]).
Cho et al., as evidenced by Kim et al. to include all the parts of the battery, discloses where C, A and S are integers greater than one (figures 1 and 2, multiple battery cells 101).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While Cho et al. discloses the battery cell is a pouch-shaped battery cell ([0052]), several types of conventional architecture geometry batteries are well known in the art, including cylindrical, prismatic, and pouch, as evidenced by Kim et al. ([0042]). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the battery cell geometry to include a variety of shapes, including prismatic and cylindrical as taught by Kim et al. based on the suitability for the particular application, including space, weight, durability and cost.
Regarding claim 4, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cho et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the battery cell stack and the chamber are within a common enclosure (figures 1 and 2, plates 110, 120 and 130 make up common enclosure with both battery cells 101 and heat dissipation member 200 within).
Regarding claim 5, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cho et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the chamber is spaced apart from an enclosure including the battery cell stack, and connected to the enclosure with a conduit (figure 2, hole 230).
Regarding claim 6, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cho et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses a plate within an enclosure housing the battery cell stack, the plate separating the chamber from the battery cell stack, the valve included with the plate (figure 2, plate 210 with valve 240; [0058]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 7, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cho et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the valve includes a tear seam extending along the plate (figure 2, valve 240; [0062]).
Regarding claim 8, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cho et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the chamber is configured to store the suppressant as a liquid (figure 2, refrigerant flow portion 220; [0058]; [0099] water).
Regarding claim 9, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cho et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the suppressant is configured to vaporize upon being released from the chamber to the battery cell stack ([0058]-[0099] refrigerant/water is a liquid that is configured to vaporize upon coming in contact with the high heat of the battery cell 101). The limitation is directed to the material or article worked upon and the manner of operating disclosed system, and it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim."
Regarding claim 10, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cho et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the suppressant is capable to include a fluorinated ketone ([0064]). The limitation is directed to the material or article worked upon, and it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2115. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the suppressant to include a fluorinated ketone as it is well known in the art as an eco-friendly fire suppression fluid and electronics coolant, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cho et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the chamber is defined by a canister configured to be inserted into an enclosure including the battery cell stack (figure 8, water tank 260; [0099]).
Regarding claim 12, Cho et al. discloses a system configured to suppress thermal runaway in a battery cell (abstract), the system comprising:
an enclosure (figures 1 and 2, plates 110, 120 and 130 make up enclosure; figure 8, plates 110’, 120’ and 130’),
a battery cell stack (figures 2 and 8, plurality battery cells 101; [0052]);
a chamber defined within the enclosure, the chamber configured to store a suppressant that is configured to suppress thermal runaway (figure 2, heat dissipation member 200 with chamber delimited by walls/plates 110 and 210 and stored suppressant/refrigerant 220; figure 8, water tank 260; [0058]; [0099]);
and a valve configured to open in response to a thermal runaway condition at the battery cell stack to release the suppressant from the chamber to the battery cell stack (figures 2 sealing member 240; figure 8, sealing member 268; [0062]; [0101]),
wherein the battery cell stack is within an enclosure that shares a common surface with the chamber, the battery cell stack is in direct contact with the common surface and the valve is at the common surface (figure 2, plates 110, 120 and 130 make up enclosure with plate 210 being common surface in direct contact with battery cell stack 101 and valve 240 located in plate 210; figure 8, plate 263 with valve 268; [0058]-[0059]; [0062]; [0099]-[0101]).
Although Cho et al. does not specifically state the structure of the battery cells, an operational battery structure would necessarily include cathode electrodes each including a cathode current collector, a cathode active layer arranged on the cathode current collector, and an external connector extending from the cathode current collector; anode electrodes each including an anode current collector, an anode active layer arranged on the anode current collector, and an external connector extending from the anode current collector; and separators, as evidenced by Kim et al. (figure 1B, #111, 112 and 113; [0056]-[0059]; [0061]; [0065]-[0066]).
Cho et al., as evidenced by Kim et al. to include all the parts of the battery, discloses where C, A and S are integers greater than one (figures 1, 2 and 8, multiple battery cells 101).
Regarding claim 13, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cho et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses a divider within the enclosure, the divider partially defining the chamber and including the valve (figure 2, plate 210 with valve 240; figure 8, plate 263 with valve 268; [0058]; [0062]; [0099]-[0101]).
Regarding claim 14, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cho et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the divider is mounted to an inner wall of the enclosure (based on figures 1, 2 and 8, plate 210/261 extends the entire length to connect to inner wall of sides plates 130).
Regarding claim 15, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cho et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the valve includes a tear seam (figure 2, sealing member 240; figure 8, sealing member 268; [0062]; [0101]).
Regarding claim 16, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cho et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the chamber is partially defined by the enclosure (figure 2, plate 110 partially defines enclosure and partially defines chamber).
Regarding claim 17, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cho et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the chamber is defined by a canister configured to be inserted into an enclosure including the battery cell stack (figure 8, water tank 260; [0099]).
Regarding claim 18, Cho et al. discloses a system configured to suppress thermal runaway in a battery cell (abstract), the system comprising:
a battery cell stack (figures 2 and 8, plurality battery cells 101; [0052]);
a chamber connected to the battery cell stack by way of a conduit, the chamber configured to store a suppressant that is configured to suppress thermal runaway (figure 2, heat dissipation member 200 with chamber delimited by walls/plates 110 and 210 and stored suppressant/refrigerant 220 with conduit/through-hole 230; figure 8, water tank 260 with conduit/through-hole 267; [0058]; [0099]-[0101]);
and a valve configured to open in response to a thermal runaway condition at the battery cell stack to release the suppressant from the chamber to the battery cell stack by way of the conduit (figure 2, through-hole 230 and sealing member 240; figure 8, through-hole 267 and sealing member 268; [0062]; [0100]-[0101]),
wherein the battery cell stack is within an enclosure that shares a common surface with the chamber, the battery cell stack is in direct contact with the common surface and the valve is at the common surface (figure 2, plates 110, 120 and 130 make up enclosure with plate 210 being common surface in direct contact with battery cell stack 101 and valve 240 located in plate 210; figure 8, plate 263 with valve 268; [0058]-[0059]; [0062]; [0099]-[0101]).
Although Cho et al. does not specifically state the structure of the battery cells, an operational battery structure would necessarily include cathode electrodes each including a cathode current collector, a cathode active layer arranged on the cathode current collector, and an external connector extending from the cathode current collector; anode electrodes each including an anode current collector, an anode active layer arranged on the anode current collector, and an external connector extending from the anode current collector; and separators, as evidenced by Kim et al. (figure 1B, #111, 112 and 113; [0056]-[0059]; [0061]; [0065]-[0066]).
Cho et al., as evidenced by Kim et al. to include all the parts of the battery, discloses where C, A and S are integers greater than one (figures 1, 2 and 8, multiple battery cells 101).
Regarding claim 19, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cho et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the battery cell stack is a first battery cell stack (figure 2, first 4 cells 101 on left), the conduit is a first conduit (figure 2, first through-hole 230 on left), and the valve is a first valve (figure 2, first sealing member 240 on left); and the chamber is connected to a second battery cell stack by way of a second conduit (figure 2, four battery cells 101 on the right side with right through-hole 230), and a second valve is configured to open in response to a thermal runaway condition at the second battery cell stack to release the suppressant from the chamber to the second battery cell stack by way of the second conduit (figure 2, right sealing member 240).
Regarding claims 20, Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While Cho et al. discloses the battery cell is a pouch-shaped battery cell ([0052]), several types of conventional architecture geometry batteries are well known in the art, including cylindrical, prismatic, and pouch, as evidenced by Kim et al. ([0042]). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the battery cell geometry to include a variety of shapes, including prismatic and cylindrical as taught by Kim et al. based on the suitability for the particular application, including space, weight, durability and cost.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights