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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) that were filed on 23 May 2025 and 16 July 2025 were considered by the examiner.
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., mounting 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.
Claims 1 and 9 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (CN115775951A, Machine Translation via EPO, hereafter Yuan) in further view of Rheinfeld et al. (DE102020128756A1, cited on IDS, hereafter Rheinfeld).
Regarding Claim 1, Yuan teaches a battery pack [0005] including a housing [0016] and a plurality of cell groups [0130] comprising a plurality of cells [0008]. The battery pack includes an explosion proof valve [0061] as well as an end plate containing a plurality of pressure relief holes where each of the pressure relief holes on the end plate corresponds one-to-one with each of the plurality of battery cells [0017], and the battery pack further includes a liquid cooling plate [0061].
However, Yuan does not expressly teach a pressure relief assembly connected to the housing, or the assembly being opposite to an explosion-proof valve of each of the cells. Rheinfeld teaches a battery, with a battery housing that includes a pressure relief valve and degassing points [0012] and a pressure relief assembly ([0007] “pressure relief valve”, [0020] “tubular or funnel-shaped guide element”). The pressure relief assembly, which includes the valves atop the cells and the tubular/funnel shaped guide member, connects to both the tops of the battery cells and the underside of the top of the housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery pack of Yuan to include the pressure relief assembly of Rheinfeld being positioned opposite to the explosion proof valves of Yuan. One would have been motivated to modify the battery pack with a pressure relief system situated opposite the explosion proof valves because the guide element, acting as a pipe in the pressure relief system, can prevent or reduce the lateral spread of discharge current below the protective element before it passes through the respective predetermined breaking point, which makes it effective and reliable to prevent the battery cells adjacent to a thermally continuous battery cell from being affected or damaged by said discharge current, according to Rheinfeld [0020]. Positioning the pressure relief assembly opposite the explosion proof valve would provide localized pressure relief that would mitigate increased pressure in the rest of the battery pack. It was also held that the rearrangement of parts was unpatentable unless a new or unexpected result was produced (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Yuan teaches a liquid cooling plate (400, [0065]) that is connected to the housing and abutting against second sides of the cell groups (FIG. 6), wherein the second sides are opposite to the first sides. When Yuan is modified by Rheinfeld to include the pressure relief assembly that is positioned between the top the battery cells and the underside of the top of the housing, the liquid cooling plate can be said to abut against second sides of the cells because the second sides are opposite to the pressure relief assembly that is attached to the first sides of the cells. Yuan teaches the liquid cooling plate to be provided with a support member (440, [0065]) where the support member is located at a junction between two cells, and one side of the support member supports a second side of one of the adjacent cell groups, and another side section of the support member supports a second side of another of the two adjacent cell groups. Since this specific support member being referenced is a plate, the support member, by virtue of its shape and its position between the lower surface of the battery module and the lower liquid cooling plate [0025], supports both the second sides of one and another adjacent cell groups (FIGS. 6, 10).
Regarding Claim 9, Yuan teaches adjacent cells being bonded together by a structural member (“side plate” 101, [0087]).
Regarding Claim 10, Yuan teaches the liquid cooling plate being internally provided with a cooling chamber for receiving coolant (430, “lower cooling plate inlet”, [0157]).
Regarding Claim 11, Yuan teaches a support member (420, “bushing”) being provided in the cooling chamber (430, (FIG. 15), [0262, 0278]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yuan teaches the support member being a grid-like structure (220, “crossbeam”, 230, “longitudinal beam”, FIG. 11).
Regarding Claim 13, Yuan teaches the liquid cooling plate 400 being provided with an avoidance recess part (421), and the support member (420, “bushing”) being fitted in the avoidance recess part (FIG. 15).
Regarding Claim 14, Yuan teaches a side wall of the housing extending toward the second sides of the cell groups to form a bearing part, the bearing part and the support member support different positions of the second sides of the cell groups (FIG. 11). The bearing part(s) is/are the rails extending from the “outer frame” 210.
Regarding Claim 15, Yuan teaches a support frame (220, 230, “crossbeam” and “longitudinal beam”, respectively) provided at the outside of the cell groups and an end of the support frame is fixedly connected to the side wall of the housing (FIG. 7). Yuan does not specifically teach the pressure relief assembly being fixedly connected to the support frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery pack of Yuan to have the support frame fixedly connected to the side wall of the housing. One would have been motivated to modify and combine the inventions in this way because in an actual implementation of a battery pack the support members create cavities for the batteries to fit into [0203] and the overall structural reliability of the battery module is improved when the battery cells are fixed in the width direction [0005], according to Yuan. Also, it was held that the rearrangement of parts was unpatentable unless a new or unexpected result was produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding Claim 16, Yuan teaches bases (223, “mounting points”) being fixedly connected between the pressure relief assembly and the support frame. The mounting points are found on the support frames, so the Yuan battery pack modified by Rheinfeld teaches the pressure relief assembly being on the first sides of the cells, meaning the mounting points on the support frames are located in between the frames and the pressure relief system.
Regarding Claim 17, Yuan teaches wherein a bottom guard plate (800) is provided at a side of the housing close to the second sides (bottom), and the liquid cooling plate (400) is provided between the bottom guard plate and the cell groups ([0151], FIG. 5).
Regarding Claim 18, Yuan teaches wherein the second sides are bonded to a side of the liquid cooling plate near the second sides by a heat conducting structure adhesive ([0164]).
Regarding Claim 19, Yuan teaches wherein a side of the bottom guard plate close to the second sides is fixedly connected to a side of the liquid cooling plate away from the second sides ([0023, 0368], FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim 20, Yuan teaches a battery pack according to claim 1 wherein the first sides refer to the tops of the cell groups in a vertical direction, and the second sides refer to bottoms of the cell groups in the vertical direction (FIG. 5). The figure denotes the Z direction as the vertical direction and refers to elements (e.g. “bottom guard plate”) to be at the bottom of the assembly. By convention, the references teach the first and second sides as being top and bottom, respectively. One would have been motivated to adopt this naming configuration for ease and clarity of describing the embodiments of the invention.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (CN11577591A) in view of Rheinfeld (DE102020128756A1) in further view of Xue et al. (CN218414931U, Machine Translation via EPO, hereafter Xue).
Regarding Claim 2, Yuan and Rheinfeld teach all the limitations of Claim 1 but do not expressly teach the pressure relief system including a pressure relief pipe where the pressure relief pipe is provided with a weakened portion, and the weakened portion is arranged opposite to the explosion proof valve.
However, Xue teaches a liquid cooled cover plate for a battery pack that could contain a plurality of cells [0032] with a pressure relief pipe (2, [0007]) that is provided with a weakened portion (221, [0007]) and the weakened portion is arranged opposite to the explosion-proof valve (4, FIG. 5, [0045]). The inventions in the instant application and the reference are within the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery pack of Yuan and Rheinfeld with the pressure relief pipe of Xue. The pressure relief pipe disclosed in Xue performs the same function as would if it was present in the Yuan battery pack modified by Rheinfeld.
One would have been motivated to modify the battery pack of Yuan and Rheinfeld with the pressure relief pipe of Xue because the pressure relief pipe reinforces other elements of the pressure assembly (cooling plate and heat insulation) to improve the battery system’s ability to protect against thermal runaway in the battery cell (Xue, [0004]). Also, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is said to support a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 4, Yuan and Rheinfeld teach all the limitations of Claim 1 and in view of Xue teach all the limitations of claim 2 but do not teach the weakened portion of the pressure relief pipe being tightly attached to the explosion proof valve or being sealingly connected to the explosion proof valve. However, Xue teaches the weakened portion of the pressure relief pipe being (detachably) fixed to the explosion-proof valve [0045]. The liquid-cooling cover plate is said to be fixed to the heat-generating components through an adhesive layer. The weakened portion is on the side of the cover plate that is fixed to the heat generating portions, which includes the explosion-proof valve, via the adhesive layer [0045], so it is understood that the weakened portion is tightly attached/fixed to the explosion proof valve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pressure relief assembly of Yuan modified by Rheinfeld with the connection of the weakened portion to the explosion-proof valve described in Xue. One would have been motivated to modify the inventions in this way because the tightly connected “weakened portion” reduces the chances of accidental leaks and/or premature openings/bursting that can cause damage to the housing and interior.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (CN11577591A) in view of Rheinfeld (DE102020128756A1) and in view of Xue et al (CN218414931U) in further view of Wang et al. (WO2023097456A1, Machine Translation via EPO, hereafter Wang).
Regarding Claim 3, Yuan and Rheinfeld teach all the limitations of Claim 1 but do not expressly teach each cell being provided with a groove and the pressure relief pipe being clamped in each groove.
However, Wang teaches a battery that may include a battery pack [0076], a pressure relief mechanism [0006] that may take the form of an explosion proof valve [0096] and a fire-fighting pipeline (12) with clamping grooves (“slots”) atop the cells. The reference teaches a plurality of battery cells that are included with the pressure relief mechanisms (211) that could be recessed into the top of the cells (FIG. 7). The reference states that the pressure relief mechanism can take the form of a pressure- or temperature-sensitive element and/or structures [0096], and elements of this nature can include recessed portions, which would be well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art. The pipeline (12) rests atop the cells over the pressure relief mechanism recesses. The pipeline is also clamped atop the cells between a first fixing piece and a second fixing piece (13, 14) so as to make the entire structure more stable [0007]. The grooves of the instant application are similar in structure and location as the reference’s pressure relief mechanism holes, and the spatial relationship between the pipeline and pressure relief holes is nearly identical to the spatial relationship of analogous elements in the instant application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery pack of Yuan and Rheinfeld with the pipeline and clamping mechanism of Wang. One would have been motivated to modify and combine the battery pack of Yuan modified by Rheinfeld to include the pipeline and clamping mechanism of Wang because even when the battery vibrates during normal operation, the pipe can be prevented from moving away from its original position, which in turn allows the pressure relief mechanism to be activated smoothly and accurately to destroy the pipe and cool down the emissions discharged through the pressure relief mechanism in a timely manner, improving the performance of the battery [0007], according to Wang. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is held to support a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (CN11577591A) in view of Rheinfeld (DE102020128756A1) and in view of Wang (CN218414931U) in further view of Cheng et al. (KR20190022830A, Machine Translation via EPO, hereafter Cheng).
Regarding Claim 5, Yuan and Rheinfeld teach all the limitations of Claim 1 but do not expressly teach a trigger channel being formed between the pressure relief pipe and the explosion proof valve where the trigger pad is fitted into the trigger channel.
However, Cheng teaches a combined explosion-proof valve mounted on a battery cover plate assembly that includes an explosion-proof membrane [0005]. Each layer of the membrane (61, 62) is provided at each end of a pressure relief hole (603) [0048]. The membrane, analogous to the trigger channel, is located in the pressure relief hole between the interior of the battery and the exterior blocked by the explosion proof valve (FIG. 1). The explosion-proof valve disclosed in the reference performs the same essential function as the trigger channel claimed in the instant application because both elements reduce combustion within the battery pack by releasing gas and heat when the battery cells are too hot or undergoing thermal runaway.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the modify the battery module of Yuan in view of Rheinfeld with the explosion-proof valve assembly of Cheng. One would have been motivated to combine the references in this way because the membrane can significantly improve uniformity and reliability of the starting pressure of the explosion-proof valve while also improving the fatigue resistance of the explosion proof valve, according to Cheng [0035]. This reduces accidental leaks and premature bursting of the explosion proof valve.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (CN11577591A) in view of Rheinfeld (DE102020128756A1), Wang (CN218414931U) and Cheng (KR20190022830A) in further view of Lee et al. (EP4439801A1, hereafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 6, Yuan and Rheinfeld teach all the limitations of claim 1 and in view of Wang teach all the limitations of claim 2, and in further view of Cheng teach all the limitations of claim 5, but are silent to a trigger pad, and more specifically a trigger pad that is made of a high temperature resistant insulation material.
However, Lee teaches a technique in which, by developing an insulating pad that is applied between cells, costs are reduced, and space is secured inside the battery pack [0010]. The insulating pad reduces pressure swelling inside the battery [0008]. The battery module that includes a mica composite insulation pad [0049]. The insulation pad taught in the reference is in the same field of endeavor as the trigger pad of the claimed invention, for they both are aimed at mitigating the damage caused by excess heat and gas produced by the battery cells during operation. One of ordinary skill in the art familiar with trying to reduce damage caused by excessive heat and gas within a battery pack may reasonably look to the use an insulation pad between a series of battery cells in a pack to accomplish this goal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery module of Yuan in view of Rheinfeld and further view of Cheng with the insulation pad of Lee. One would be motivated to modify trigger pads to be made of a high-temperature resistant insulation material, such as mica. According to Lee [0040], materials of this kind are used because they do not degrade under use at high temperatures, such as when a battery undergoes thermal runaway or during periods of extensive/prolonged use of the battery.
Regarding Claim 7, Yuan, Rheinfeld, Wang and Cheng in further view of Lee teach all the limitations of claim 6, and Lee further teaches the trigger pad being a mica paper ([0040], [0053]). The mica paper is said to not degrade under use at high temperatures, according to Lee [0040].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (CN115775951A) in view of Rheinfeld (DE102020128765A1) and in view of Wang (CN218414931U).
Regarding Claim 8, Yuan in view of Rheinfeld and Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 2 but are silent to a side of the pressure relief pipe extending toward the cell groups to form a pressing edge abutting against the cell groups.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pressure relief pipe to include a pressing edge because a pressing edge can reduce choke points and lower the required pressure threshold for bursting. This practice is well known in the art, and it was held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP2015056342A: teaches an electrical storage module used as a battery module, with a lead terminal connected to a busbar.
CN115411448A: teaches a pressure relief explosion-proof valve and battery top cover.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIMILIAN D BAGILEO whose telephone number is (571)270-5460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/M.D.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
