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 Objections
Claims 1, 5-7, 12, 14, 15, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, dependent claim 9 recites “a second cover”, and dependent claims 10-11 recite “the first cover” referring to the cover of claim 1, hence the noted corrections provide consistent claim terminology. The phrase “a cover” and “the cover” should be corrected to --a first cover-- and --the first cover--.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, and 15 are dependent on claim 1, and with the above noted corrections to claim 1, the following corrections are also appropriate for consistent claim terminology. The phrase “the cover” should be corrected to --the first cover--.
Regarding claim 6, dependent claim 8 recites the term “the fire-resistant module” and claim 6 does not recite this term but teaches that a fire-resistant expanding foam may be injected between the cover and the at least one battery module. Thus, claim 6 naturally teaches that the battery module is a fire-resistant module. Hence, “the at least one battery module.” should be corrected to --the at least one battery module, making the at least one battery module a fire-resistant module.-- for consistent claim terminology. Additionally, the phrase “the cover” should be corrected to --the first cover-- as noted above for claims 5, 7, 12, 14, and 15.
Regarding claim 19, the term “non-mutually facing sides” is first introduced, and as claim 19 teaches that the second battery module is alongside the first battery module, claim 19 naturally teaches that there are non-mutually facing sides. Hence, the phrase “each of the non-mutually facing sides” should be corrected to --each of
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 1, 5, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom (US 2018/0062196 A1) in view of Baba (JP 2016/103521 A, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Eom is considered to satisfy a battery runaway management system because it teaches a metal casing, which may be fire-resistant or fire-retardant, that can be used in a battery pack including one or more battery modules, thus one or more casing (paragraphs 41 and 57). Eom teaches the system comprising at least one battery module (paragraph 1), a cover extending over a top and each side of the at least one battery module (figures 8-11), the cover being integral formed as a single unitary body from a fire-resistant or fire-retardant material (paragraph 41; figure 8), wherein the cover comprises a single flat panel bent to form a cover top, first and second side walls depending from the cover top, first and second front walls, and first and second rear walls (figures 8-11), wherein the cover includes a plurality of creases about which the single flat panel is bent and folded, wherein the plurality of creases includes: a first crease connecting the first side wall to the cover top (paragraph 62; figures 8-11); a second crease connecting the second side wall to the cover top, the second crease on an opposite side of the cover top from the first crease and extending parallel to the first crease (paragraph 62; figures 8-11); a third crease connecting the first front wall to the first side wall (first front plate 211; figures 8-11); a fourth crease connecting the second front wall to the second side wall (second front plate 212; figures 8-11); the first front wall and the second front wall extending toward one another from the third crease and the fourth crease (figure 11); a fifth crease connecting the first rear wall to the first side wall, the fifth crease on an opposite side of the first side wall from the third crease and extending parallel to the third crease (first back plate 221; figures 8-11); a sixth crease connecting the second rear wall to the second side wall, the sixth crease on an opposite side of the second side wall from the fourth crease and extending parallel to the fourth crease (second back plate 222; figures 8-11); the first rear wall and the second rear wall extending toward one another from the fifth crease and the sixth crease (paragraph 43; figure 11).
Eom differs from claim 1 in that:
Eom fails to teach wherein the cover includes preformed creases.
In related art, Baba teaches a panel that comprises preformed creases about which the panel is bent and folded (grooves 51c are formed at the boundaries of the regions A1, A2, A3, and A4, paragraph 24). Baba notes that the grooves make it easier to bend the metal plate (paragraph 24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the cover of Eom with this limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantage in accordance with the teachings of Baba.
Regarding claim 5, Eom in view of Baba teaches the system of claim 1, and Eom teaches wherein the cover comprises a cover sidewall having an opening through which a portion of the at least one battery module projects, wherein the portion comprises a battery connection interface (paragraph 44; figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 9, Eom in view of Baba teaches the system of claim 9, and Eom teaches a battery pack that may include one or more battery modules 10, which includes a casing 200 extending over a top and each side of a battery module (paragraphs 40 and 57), the casing being integrally formed as a single unitary body from a fire-resistant material configured to withstand a temperature of 150°C for at least 30 minutes (paragraph 41). The casing can be made of tungsten for example, which is fire-resistant and can withstand a temperature of 150°C for at least 30 minutes.
Regarding claim 16, Eom in view of Baba teach all the limitations of this claim, see analysis for claim 1 above. Claim 16 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom in view of Baba as applied to claims 1, 5, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Hwang (KR 2022/0119956 A, referencing US 2022/0271395 A1 as an English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 2, Eom in view of Baba teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach a fire-resistant or fire-retardant material that comprises mica. However, in related art Hwang teaches a fire-resistant or fire-retardant material that comprises mica (paragraph 68). Hwang further teaches that mica material and metal material may be alternatively used as flame barriers in a battery (paragraphs 65 and 68). Hwang notes that doing so would reduce the formation of a hole in a fire-resistant barrier by high temperature flames (paragraph 68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified system of Eom with this limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Hwang.
Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom in view of Baba as applied to claims 1, 5, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Barry (GB 2588768 A).
Regarding claim 6, Eom in view of Baba teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach at least one fill port through which a fire-resistant expanding foam may be injected between the cover and the at least one battery module. However, in related art Barry teaches at least one fill port through which a fire-resistant expanding foam may be injected between the cover and the at least one battery module (an expandable foam, which is introduced through an inlet 21 into the battery pack housing member, abstract; expandable foam, intumescent foam, polyurethane foam, page 3, lines 31-33). Barry notes that doing so would stop or reduce the spread of excessive heat from a region within a battery pack (page 1, lines 29-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified system of Eom with this limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Barry.
Regarding claim 7, Eom in view of Baba and Barry teaches the system of claim 6, but fails to teach the fire-resistant expanding foam extending between the cover and a top of the at least one battery module. However, Barry teaches the fire-resistant expanding foam extending between the cover and a top of the at least one battery module (expandable foam, intumescent foam, polyurethane foam, page 3, lines 30-33; the reinforcement means comprises expandable foam, page 6, line 26; provide a reinforcement means which can be used throughout the interior space of the entire pack, page 1, lines 36-37). Barry notes that Doing so would stop or reduce the spread of excessive heat from a region within a battery pack (page 1, lines 29-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified system of Eom with this limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantage in accordance with the teachings of Barry.
Regarding claim 17, Eom in view of Baba teaches the cover of claim 16, and Barry teaches at least one foam fill port through which a fire resistant foam or potting may be injected into an interior of the cover, see analysis for claim 6 above. Claim 17 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 18, Eom in view of Baba and Barry teaches the cover of claim 17, but fails to teach a cover wherein the at least one foam fill port extends through a portion of the flat panel that is to form the cover top. However, Barry teaches a cover wherein the at least one foam fill port extends through a portion of the flat panel that is to form the cover top (via a hole in the upper clamshell 11, page 15, lines 7-9, figure 4). Barry notes that doing so would allow the use of foam inside the cover and stop or reduce the spread of excessive heat from a region within a battery pack (page 1, lines 29-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified cover of Eom with this limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantage in accordance with the teachings of Barry.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom in view of Baba and Barry as applied to claims 6-7 and 17-18 above, and further in view of Flannery (WO 2020/094365 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Eom in view of Baba and Barry teaches the system of claim 6 and a metal casing structure (Eom, paragraph 41), but fails to teach a pan underlying and supporting the fire-resistant module, wherein the fire-resistant expanding foam extends into the pan about the at least one battery module. However, in related art Flannery teaches a pan underlying and supporting the fire-resistant module (lower clamshell 1337, page 23, lines 33-36), wherein the fire-resistant expanding foam extends into the pan about the at least one battery module (page 3, lines 41-43). Flannery notes that doing so would support the metal support structures which are fire-resistant (page 23, lines 47-48; figure 7) and prevent a high energy thermal event from propagating through the battery pack (page 3, lines 36-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified system of Eom with this limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Flannery.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom in view of Baba as applied to claims 1, 5, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Schaefer (US 2014/0054196 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Eom in view of Baba teaches the system of claim 9, but fails to teach wherein the second battery module overlies the first cover. However, in related art Schaefer teaches wherein the second battery module overlies the first cover (paragraphs 160 and 161; figure 4). Schaefer suggests that when the battery modules are stacked vertically, they are better suited for transportation and/or stacking by means of a forklift truck (paragraphs 59, 160, and 161). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified system of Eom with this limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Schaefer.
Regarding claim 11, Eom in view of Baba and Schaefer teaches the system of claim 10, but fails to wherein a fire-resistant layer extends between a top of the first cover and a bottom of the second battery module. However, Schaefer teaches wherein a fire-resistant layer extends between a top of the first cover and a bottom of the second battery module (filler material 142; figure 4). Schaefer notes that the use of the filler would limit the movement of the battery module during transportation (paragraph 158). Schaefer suggests that the filler may be made of a fire-resistant material (paragraph 65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified system of Eom with this limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Schaefer.
Claims 12-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom in view of Baba as applied to claims 1, 5, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Jeong (KR 2022/0036171 A, referencing US 2022/0085437 A1 as an English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 12, Eom in view of Baba teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the at least one battery module comprises a first battery module and a second battery module alongside the first battery module and wherein the system further comprises a divider wall suspended from a cover top of the cover and extending between mutually facing sides of the first battery module and the second battery module, the divider wall being formed from a fire-resistant or fire retardant material. However, in related art Jeong teaches the at least one battery module comprises a first battery module and a second battery module alongside the first battery module (paragraph 17, figure 4), and wherein the system further comprises a divider wall suspended from a cover top of the cover and extending between mutually facing sides of the first battery module and the second battery module (paragraph 24, intermediate plate member 42, figures 2 and 4), the divider wall being formed from a fire-resistant or fire retardant material (paragraphs 24 and 98). The configuration of Jeong covers a top and each of the non-mutually facing sides of the first and second battery modules (figures 1 and 2). Jeong notes that this configuration would increase the heat transfer efficiency when the battery generates heat (paragraph 79). Eom notes that the casing 200 can be formed to have a shape corresponding to the shape of the battery cartridge assembly (paragraph 41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified system of Eom with this limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Jeong.
Regarding claim 13, Eom in view of Baba and Jeong teaches the system of claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the divider wall is bonded to the cover top. However, Jeong teaches wherein the divider wall is bonded to the cover top (intermediate plate member 42, figure 4). Jeong notes that this configuration would allow for the formation of an “I” shape structure or a “C” shape structure, suggesting that the intermediates plate configuration can be adjusted to fit the desired path of heat dissipation (paragraph 97). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified system of Eom with this limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Jeong.
Regarding claim 14, Eom in view of Baba and Jeong teaches the system of claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the divider wall is integrally formed as part of a single unitary body with the cover. However, Jeong suggests wherein the divider wall is integrally formed as part of a single unitary body with the cover (intermediate plate member 42, figure 4). Eom notes that forming the cover integrally reduces that number of parts and the number of welding times, simplifying the coupling process (paragraph 41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified system of Eom with this limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Eom and Jeong.
Regarding claim 15, Eom in view of Baba and Jeong teaches the system of claim 12, and Eom teaches wherein the cover is formed from a folded or bent panel of fire-resistant material (paragraph 41), but fails to teach wherein the divider wall is formed from a folded portion of the panel. However, Jeong teaches a divider wall (intermediate plate member 42, figure 4). Eom notes that forming the cover integrally reduces that number of parts and the number of welding times, simplifying the coupling process (paragraph 41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified system of Eom with this limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Eom and Jeong.
Regarding claim 19, Eom in view of Baba and Jeong teaches all the limitations, see analysis for claims 1 and 12 above. Claim 19 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 20, Eom in view of Baba and Jeong teaches the system of claim 19, and teaches all the limitations of this claim, see analysis for claims 1 and 12 above. Claim 20 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 September 2026 have been fully considered and new grounds of rejection that are necessitated by the amendments have been made.
The rejections of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn after consideration of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 16, and 19 are drawn to new limitations added to the claims by the most recent amendment. The arguments are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments that are applied above which address the newly amended claims.
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 RENAD NAKDALI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3286. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 AM - 4:00 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, Philip Tucker can be reached at (571)-272-1095. 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.
/R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
