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 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 10 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 10, the term “the cover” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 1 and 9, upon which claim 10 depends, have a first and second cover respectively. Therefore, it is unclear which cover the second battery overlies. For examination purposes the examiner has interpreted the term “the cover” to be the second cover.
Regarding claim 11, the term “the cover” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 1 and 9, upon which claim 11 depends, have a first and second cover respectively. Therefore, it is unclear which cover the fire-resistant layer extends from to reach the bottom of the second battery module. For examination purposes the examiner has interpreted the term “the cover” to be the second cover.
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, 3, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura (WO 2021/145361 A1, referencing US 2023/0051560 A1 as an English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Kimura teaches a battery runaway management system (a housing for dissipating heat of an electronic component, paragraph 5) comprising: at least one battery module (paragraph 4); a cover extending over a top and each side of the at least one battery module (figure 3), the cover being integrally formed as a single unitary body from a fire-resistant or fire-retardant material (paragraphs 145 and 146, figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Kimura teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the cover comprises a single flat panel bent to form a cover top and four cover sides (paragraph 146, figure 3).
Regarding claim 16, Kimura teaches a fire resistant cover for a battery module (paragraph 145 and 146), the fire resistant cover comprising: a flat panel formed from a fire resistant material (development view-like metal plate 20, paragraph 145; figure 3), the flat panel being foldable to form a cover top and at least three cover sides configured to extend over and along side portions of the battery module (paragraph 146, figure 3).
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hwang (KR 2022/0119956 A, referencing US 2022/0271395 A1 as an English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 2, Kimura teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach a fire-resistant or fire-retardant material that comprises mica.
However, Hwang teaches a fire-resistant or fire-retardant material that comprises mica (paragraph 68). Kimura and Hwang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire-resistant covers for batteries. Hwang further teaches that mica material and metal material may be alternatively used as flame barriers in a battery (paragraphs 65 and 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 have modified Kimura to incorporate the teaching of Hwang, and create a fire-resistant barrier that comprises mica. Doing so would reduce the formation of a hole in a fire-resistant barrier by high temperature flames as suggested by Hwang (paragraph 68).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, in view of Baba (JP 2016/103521 A, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, Kimura teaches the system of claim 3, but fails to teach a panel that comprises preformed creases about which the panel is bent and folded.
However, 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). Kimura and Baba are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of covers for batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura to incorporate the teaching of Baba, and create a panel with preformed creases about which the panel is bent and folded. Doing so would make it easier to bend the metal plate as suggested by Baba (paragraph 24).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jeon (US 2022/0052392 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kimura teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach 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.
However, Jeon teaches 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 131, figure 1). Kimura and Jeon are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire-resistant covers for batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura to incorporate the teaching of Jeon, and create 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. Doing so would allow the battery interface to be connected and interact with the outside of the cover as suggested by Jeon (paragraph 131).
Claims 6-7, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, in view of Barry (GB 2588768 A).
Regarding claim 6, Kimura 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, 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). Kimura and Barry are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire-resistant covers for batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura to incorporate the teaching of Barry, and create a cover with 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. Doing so would stop or reduce the spread of excessive heat from a region within a battery pack as suggested by Barry (page 1, lines 29-34).
Regarding claim 7, Kimura in view of Barry teaches the system of claim 6, but Kimura 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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura to incorporate the teachings of Barry, and use a fire-resistant expandable foam that extends between the over and a top of the at least one battery module. Doing so would stop or reduce the spread of excessive heat from a region within a battery pack as suggested by Barry (page 1, lines 29-34).
Regarding claim 17, Kimura in view of 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 as applied to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 18, Kimura in view of Barry teaches the system of claim 17, but Kimura 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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura to incorporate the teaching of Barry, and create 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. 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 as suggested by Barry (page 1, lines 29-34).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Barry as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Flannery (WO 2020094365 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kimura in view of Barry teaches the system of claim 6 and a metallic structure (Kimura, paragraph 145), but Kimura 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, 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). Kimura and Flannery are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of thermal runaway management systems for batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura to incorporate the teachings of Flannery, and use a metallic pan that is underlying and supporting the fire-resistant module, wherein the fire-resistant expanding foam extends into the pan about the at least one battery module. 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 as suggested by Flannery (page 3, lines 36-41).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yoon (KR 2022/0033931 A, referencing US 2024/0297394 A1 as an English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 9, Kimura teaches the system of claim 1 and a cover being integrally formed as a single unitary body from a fire-resistant material configured to withstand a temperature of 1500C for at least 30 minutes (development view-like metal plate 20, paragraph 145; figure 3). The metal plate 20 can be made of tungsten for example, which is fire-resistant and can withstand a temperature of 1500C for at least 30 minutes. Kimura fails to teach a second battery module; and a second cover extending over a top and each side of the second battery module.
However, Yoon teaches a second battery module; and a second cover extending over a top and each side of the second battery module (figure 2). Kimura and Yoon are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of thermal runaway management systems for batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura to incorporate the teachings of Yoon, and create a second cover for a second battery module that extends over a top and each side of the second battery module. Doing so may block heat propagation to surrounding battery modules when one battery module is heated as suggested by Yoon (paragraph 1).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Yoon as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Schaefer (US 2014/0054196 A1).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Kimura in view of Yoon teaches the system of claim 9, and Yoon teaches a second battery module as well as a second cover, but Kimura fails to teach a battery module that overlies the second cover.
However, Schaefer teaches a battery module that overlies the second cover (figure 3). Kimura and Schaefer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of thermal runaway management systems for batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura to incorporate the teachings of Schaefer, and configure the system such that the battery module overlies the second cover. Doing so would allow for creating a secure barrier between the interior of the holding apparatus and the environment that is sufficient to withstand complex danger situations as suggested by Schaefer (paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Kimura in view of Schaefer teaches the system of claim 10, but Kimura fails to teach a fire-resistant layer that extends between a top of the second cover and a bottom of the second battery module.
However, Schaefer teaches a fire-resistant layer that extends between a top of the cover and a bottom of the second battery module (paragraphs 24, 149, and 150, figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura to incorporate the teachings of Schaefer, and configure the fire-resistant layer to extend between a top of the cover and a bottom of the second battery module. Doing so would allow for the prevention of the movement of the battery module during transportation as suggested by Schaefer (paragraph 161).
Claims 12-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jeong (KR 2022/0036171 A, referencing US 2022/085437 A1 as an English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 12, Kimura teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach 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, 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). Kimura and Jeong are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of thermal runaway management systems for batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura to incorporate the teachings of Jeong, and create a cover that comprises a divider wall suspended from a cover top 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. Doing so would increase the heat transfer efficiency when the battery generates heat as suggested by Jeong (paragraph 79).
Regarding claim 13, Kimura in view of Jeong teaches the system of claim 12 wherein the divider wall is bonded to the cover top (intermediate plate member 42, figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura to incorporate the teachings of Jeong, and create a divider wall that is bonded to the cover top. Doing so would allow for the formation of an “I” shape structure or a “C” shape structure, as suggested by Jeong (paragraph 97)
Regarding claim 14, Kimura in view of Jeong teaches the system of claim 12 wherein the divider wall is integrally formed as part of a single unitary body with the cover (intermediate plate member 42, figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura to incorporate the teachings of Jeong, and create a divider wall that is integrally formed as part of a single unitary body with the cover. Doing so would simplify process management and reduce the number of components as suggested by Kimura (paragraph 150)
Regarding claim 15, Kimura in view of Jeong teaches the system of claim 12, and Kimura teaches a cover is formed from a folded or bent panel of fire-resistant material (paragraphs 145 and 146, figure 3), but fails to teach the divider wall is formed from a folded portion of the panel.
However, Jeong teaches a divider wall (intermediate plate member 42, figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura to incorporate the teachings of Jeong, and create a divider wall that is formed from a folded portion of the panel. Doing so would increase the productivity of the cooling type housing as suggested by Kimura (paragraph 154).
Regarding claim 19, Kimura teaches a battery thermal runaway management system, see analysis for claim 1 above. Kimura in view of Jeong teaches the remaining limitations of this claim, see analysis for claims 12 and 14 above.
Regarding claim 20, Kimura in view of Jeong teaches the limitations of this claim, see analysis for claims 12 and 13 above.
Conclusion
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
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights