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
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aitharaju et al. (hereinafter “Aitharaju”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0142691 A1, cited by Applicant).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Aitharaju teaches a battery housing 20 (battery enclosure) for a lithium-ion battery, the housing having an exterior surface 22 and an interior surface 24 that faces an interior compartment 26. The housing 20 may be an assembly comprising a lower tray cover 28 (base) and an upper battery pack cover 30 (cover) (see paragraph 44; FIG. 1). Such an assembly 100 may include a composite structure 110 (non-metallic composite layer) defining an interior facing first surface 112 that faces the interior compartment 26, and a metal layer 120 (metallic layer) disposed along the exterior facing second surface 114 of the composite structure 110 (see paragraphs 59 and 61). Further, an adhesive may be used to bond the exterior facing second surface 114 of the composite structure 110 to the metal layer 120, wherein the adhesive contains one or more intumescent materials which may increase in volume when exposed to an excessive thermal load. In this way, the adhesive promotes a desirable amount of delamination during a thermal event (metallic layer configured to at least partially separate from the non-metallic layer; adhesive configured to release at least a portion of the metallic layer from cooperation with the non-metallic composite layer) (see paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 3, Aitharaju teaches that an interface 150 between the exterior facing second surface 114 of the composite structure 110 and metallic layer 120 may be further modified by adding a coating 152 (insulation layer) on the metal layer 120. The coating 152 may comprise an intumescent material that is mixed with a polymeric binder and applied over the composite fiber preform to coat the exterior facing second surface 114 (see paragraph 70).
Regarding claim 4, Aitharaju teaches that the composite structure 110 may comprise a carbon fiber epoxy composite (see paragraph 60). Furthermore, in view of Aitharaju’s teaching that the coating 152 is applied over the composite fiber preform to coat the exterior facing second surface 114 (see paragraph 70), one of ordinary skill would expect some amount of the fibers contained within the composite fiber preform to become embedded within the coating 152.
Regarding claim 5, Aitharaju teaches that the composite material may include fire retardant materials (see paragraph 56).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Aitharaju teaches that the composite material may comprise an epoxy with glass fibers as a reinforcing material distributed therein (see paragraphs 47 and 53).
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.
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aitharaju et al. as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Pein (WO 2021/083538 A1; see English machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Aitharaju is silent as to a plurality of receptables configured to receive a potting material.
Pein teaches a battery module 10 comprising a plurality of accumulators 20 located within a module housing which consists of a first module housing part 30, a second housing part 40, and a potting material 50 (potting material). The first module housing part 30 has first recesses, and the accumulators 20 are located such that each accumulator protrudes into these first recesses (plurality of receptables) (see paragraph 62). The potting material is arranged between the first module housing part 30, the second module housing part 40 and the accumulators 20, including within the first recesses (see paragraphs 18, FIG. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the recesses and potting material of Pein to the battery housing of Aitharaju because Pein teaches that the potting material ensures a shock-proof positioning of the accumulators relative to one another (see paragraph 18).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Aitharaju teaches a battery housing 20 (battery enclosure) for a lithium-ion battery, the housing having an exterior surface 22 and an interior surface 24 that faces an interior compartment 26. The housing 20 may be an assembly comprising a lower tray cover 28 (base) and an upper battery pack cover 30 (cover) (see paragraph 44; FIG. 1). Such an assembly 100 may include a composite structure 110 (non-metallic composite layer) defining an interior facing first surface 112 that faces the interior compartment 26, and a metal layer 120 (metallic layer) disposed along the exterior facing second surface 114 of the composite structure 110 (see paragraphs 59 and 61). Further, an adhesive may be used to bond the exterior facing second surface 114 of the composite structure 110 to the metal layer 120, wherein the adhesive contains one or more intumescent materials which may increase in volume when exposed to an excessive thermal load. In this way, the adhesive promotes a desirable amount of delamination during a thermal event (metallic layer configured to at least partially separate from the non-metallic layer; adhesive configured to release at least a portion of the metallic layer from cooperation with the non-metallic composite layer) (see paragraph 64).
Aitharaju is silent as to a potting material between the battery cells and extending into a plurality of receptables.
Pein teaches a battery module 10 comprising a plurality of accumulators 20 located within a module housing which consists of a first module housing part 30, a second housing part 40, and a potting material 50 (potting material). The first module housing part 30 has first recesses, and the accumulators 20 are located such that each accumulator protrudes into these first recesses (plurality of receptables) (see paragraph 62). The potting material is arranged between the first module housing part 30, the second module housing part 40 and the accumulators 20, including within the first recesses (see paragraphs 18, FIG. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the recesses and potting material of Pein to the battery housing of Aitharaju because Pein teaches that the potting material ensures a shock-proof positioning of the accumulators relative to one another (see paragraph 18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Claims 8, 9, 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither teaches nor suggests the baffle extending into the base, wherein the baffle either includes reinforcing fiber tape, as recited in claim 8; or wherein the baffle is between the seal and the plurality of battery cells, as recited in claims 13 and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHAN J ESSEX whose telephone number is (571)270-7866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/STEPHAN J ESSEX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights