, 663DETAILED 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 .
Claims 1-11 are pending in the application.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1-11 in the reply filed on 07/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of protecting adjacent cells from thermal runaway, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/14/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference number 400 disclosed in para. 0078, 0079, and 0081. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the instant specification para. 0069 and 0074, it is disclosed 150 oC (140 oF ), 140 oF should be corrected to 302oF.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: “anode-cathode stack from an external heat sourse” should be changed to “anode-cathode stack from an external source of heat” consistent with claim 1 on which claim 4 is dependent.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: 150 oC is equal to 302oF and not 140 oF as recited in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) are: “the passive control system is configured to discharge the cell”, “the thermal switch is configured to close”, “the passive control system is configured to discharge energy”, the passive control system is configured to discharge energy” and “passive control system is configured to reduce an exothermic reaction” in claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 respectively.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 4 and 10 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 “load resistor has little to no contribution to heating”, it is unclear as to what would be considered as “little” rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “discharge energy in the cell when the cell reaches the threshold temperature in a predetermined amount of time, the predetermined amount of time being between 30 seconds and 3 minutes”, it is unclear if the discharge of the cell or the cell reaching threshold temperature would happen in the predetermined time between 30 seconds and 3 minutes, rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmonds (US 2017/0018817 A1) in view of Plasko (US Pat. 6084501) and Oosaki (US Pat. 5689173)
Regarding claim 1, Simmonds discloses a cell, comprising: a cell housing (para. 0038). Simmonds further discloses a control system (discharge circuit, para. 0005) comprising a thermal switch (para. 0005) and a load resistor (resistive load, ref. 110, figure 3, para. 0050) configured to discharge the cell to the load resistor in response to an external source of heat (para. 0003, 0005) being applied to the cell that causes a temperature of the control system to exceed a threshold temperature, so as to reduce a state-of-charge (SOC) of the cell to less than 25% (figure 5, para. 0037, 0061). Simmonds discloses the battery cell's SOC is discharged to its lowest permitted value e.g. 10% (para. 0044) which falls below 25 % thereby overlapping with the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). While Simmonds does not explicitly disclose an anode-cathode stack, a lithium-ion cell as disclosed by Simmonds (para. 0038) would necessarily comprise an anode -cathode stack.
Simmonds fails to disclose the passive control system comprising a control block, the control block including a thermal switch disposed therein, and wherein the cell housing contains the load resistor, the passive control system, and the anode- cathode stack.
Plasko discloses a self-contained the passive control system (thermal cutoff switch assembly, ref. 10, figure 2) with in the cell as a sealed container (figure 4, abstract, col. 1, lines 50-60). Plasko discloses a cell housing (ref. 38, figure 4) with electrodes (ref. 44, figure 4), a thermal cut off switch inserted into the center of the battery (col. 5, lines 27-34). Plasko further discloses the passive control system (thermal cutoff switch assembly) comprises of a control block (sealed hollow switch housing, col. 2, lines 17-21) which includes a thermal switch (elongated shape memory conductor, ref. 18, figure 2 and 4) that can be used to close or open a circuit when a predetermined temperature is reached in the cell (col. 1 line 50-55). Plasko discloses a load resistor (insulator, ref. 16, figure 2, col. 6, lines 15-20) can be placed on the inside contour of the and the electrically conductive member (ref. 12, collector element) made of stainless steel (col. 3, line 1-3) or can be placed the on the inside contour of the lid (ref.14, col. 3, line 19-23 ). So, the load resistor is physically isolated from the anode-cathode stack (electrode assembly ref. 44, figure 2) via the control block (figure 4). Plasko further discloses such a thermal cutoff switch assembly in a sealed unit that is small can be easily and economically incorporated directly into a primary electrochemical cell (col. 2, lines 13-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the control system of Simmonds by substituting with the thermal cutoff switch assembly of Plasko. The modification would result in a passive control system containing a control block that is physically isolated from the anode-cathode stack for opening or closing a circuit at a predetermined temperature (i.e. a thermal switch as claimed) and a cell housing containing the load resistor of Simmonds, the passive control system of Plasko and the anode-cathode stack of Simmonds, as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the control system of Simmonds to arrive at a sealed unit that is small can be easily and economically incorporated directly into a primary electrochemical cell.
Simmonds and Plasko fails to disclose the load resistor is thermally isolated from the anode-cathode stack.
Oosaki discloses a battery pack with battery cells (figure 4, col. 2, lines 50-55), a housing accommodating, a thermal switch (heat sensitive cut-off device) connected in series with the batteries to switch to an off state when battery temperature exceeds a set temperature, a control block (inside case) to house the thermal switch, and a load resistor (heating resistor) also contained within the inside case (col. 2, lines 50-57, figure 9). Oosaki further discloses the load resistor (heating resistor) is thermally insulated by the double layer of the control block (inside case) and the outer shell to reduce heat loss due to radiation to the outside (col. 2 lines 62-64). Oosaki discloses the load resistor which is thermally connected with the heat sensitive cut-off device housed within the same inside case generates Joule heat due to current that bypasses the heat sensitive cut-off device when it is in the off state and the heating resistor's Joule heating directly heats the heat sensitive cut-off device to hold it in the off state (col. 2 lines 64-67, col. 3 lines 1-4, col. 4, lines 8-18). Oosaka further discloses in a battery pack with this structure, heat conduction within the control pack (inside case) from the load resistor (heating resistor) to the thermal switch (heat sensitive cut-off device) is improved, and heat dissipation through radiation is reduced by the double thermal covering of the outside shell and the inside case (col. 4, lines 2-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the passive control system of the combination of Simmonds and Plasko by thermally isolating the load resistor from the anode cathode stack as taught by Oosaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the passive control system of Simmonds and Plasko to arrive at a load resistor thermally isolated for the reduction of heat dissipation through radiation.
Regarding claim 2 and 3, Simmonds fails to disclose the thermal switch is integral with the cell and is passive, mechanical and requires no signal input or external control to switch to cause the discharge.
Plasko discloses the thermal switch (an elongated shape memory conductor, ref. 18, figure 4) positioned with in the cell has opposite ends engaging contact areas on the lid and collector (col. 2, lines 23-25) making it integral with the cell. Plasko discloses the thermal switch is an elongated shape memory conductor, a nitinol wire (col.3, line 25-30) and the thermal switch when it is subjected to a temperature equal to or greater than the recovery temperature of the nitinol wire from which it is constructed, the wire will change to its recovered shape (col.3, lines 25-30) and the recovered shape, is a curved section of a coil of a helically wound spring. Plasko further discloses should the battery overheat for any reason, when a predetermined temperature is obtained, shape memory conductor returns to its recovered shape in the form of an arc (col. 6, lines 10-14). When the wire recovers its curved shape, the chord so defined essentially represents a foreshortened wire which no longer touches both lid and collector thereby breaking the circuit (ref.18a , figure 4, col. 4, line 55-63). Therefore, the thermal switch as taught by Plasko is passive and mechanical and does not require any signal input or external control to switch to cause the discharge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the switch of Simmonds by as taught by Plasko. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the switch of Simmonds to arrive at a thermal switch which changes shape when exposed to a threshold temperature so as to break the circuit.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Simmonds, Plasko and Oosaki discloses a load resistor thermally isolated from the anode-cathode stack as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Claim 4 does not recite any additional structural element to claim 1. (MPEP 2114(II)). Claim 4 is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1, above, the combination of Simmonds, Plasko and Oosaki resulting in a cell having all of the claimed structural feature as presently claimed and would therefore be capable of performing the intended function or operation as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Simmonds disclose the thermal switch is configured to close in response to exceeding a predetermined temperature (para. 0005) and wherein in response to the thermal switch closing, the anode-cathode stack becomes in electrical communication with the load resistor (resistive load, ref. 110, para. 0044) by disclosing current consequently flows through the terminals (ref. 108) and the resistive load (ref. 110).
Regarding claim 6, Simmonds discloses the predetermined temperature is 60 oC -120oC overlapping the claimed range of 50oC and 150 oC.(para. 0061, 0063, figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, Simmonds discloses a battery pack (ref. 600) with a plurality of cells (ref. 604, para. 0066, figure 6) contained in a casing (ref. 602). The limitation “adjacent cells, that are adjacent to a passively….10% state-of-charge” are functional limitation defining the claimed components by the results they are capable of producing during battery operation, it does not recite any additional structural element to claim 1. There fore the combination of Simmonds, Plasko and Oosaki resulting in a cell having all of the claimed structural feature as presently claimed and would therefore be capable of performing the intended function or operation as claimed. The optional limitations are optional and therefore not addressed.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Simmonds, Plasko and Oosaki as discussed with respect to claim 1, 3 and 7 discloses a battery module wherein a passive protection from the passive control system is not from a control module or battery management system. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, passive protection from the passive control system refers to the protection afforded by the control block and thermal switch recited in claim 1 and 3. Therefore it would not require any more weight beyond the limitation that followed. Claim 8 does not recite any additional structural element to claim 1. (MPEP 2114(II)). Claim 8 is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 and 7, above, the combination of Simmonds, Plasko and Oosaki resulting in a cell having all of the claimed structural feature as presently claimed and would therefore be capable of performing the intended function or operation as claimed. The optional limitations are optional and therefore not addressed.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Simmonds, Plasko and Oosaki as discussed above with respect to claim 1 and 7 discloses a battery module wherein passive protection of the passive control system is provided on a one-to-one basis between the thermal switch and the cell. Simmonds discloses discharging of individual cells to a safe SOC, when the measured temperature is at or above the self-heating temperature, as quickly as possible (para. 0061). Claim 9 does not recite any additional structural element to claim 1. (MPEP 2114(II)). Claim 9 is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 and 7, above, the combination of Simmonds, Plasko and Oosaki resulting in a cell having all of the claimed structural feature as presently claimed and would therefore be capable of performing the intended function or operation as claimed. The optional limitations are optional and therefore not addressed.
Regarding claim 10, Simmonds discloses the control system is configured to discharge energy in the cell to minimum SOC when the cell reaches the threshold temperature as quickly as possible (para. 0061). Claim 10 does not recite any additional structural element to claim 1. (MPEP 2114(II)). Claim 10 is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 and 7, above, the combination of Simmonds, Plasko and Oosaki resulting in a cell having all of the claimed structural feature as presently claimed and would therefore be capable of performing the intended function or operation as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Simmonds performs the method for inhibiting thermal runway (ref. 500, figure 5) independently for each of the battery cells (para. 0061, 0066). The combination of Simmonds, Plasko and Oosaki discloses battery module with the passive control system is configured to discharge energy in the cell to reduce chance of thermal runaway in adjacent cells due to heat from the cell, as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 7. Claim 11 recites only results attributable to the arrangement recited in claim 1 and 7 and does not recite any additional structural element. (MPEP 2114(II)). Claim 11 is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 and 7, above, the combination of Simmonds, Plasko and Oosaki resulting in a cell having all of the claimed structural feature as presently claimed and would therefore be capable of performing the intended function or operation as claimed.
Claims 7, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmonds (US 2017/0018817 A1) in view of Plasko (US Pat. 6084501) and Oosaki (US Pat. 5689173) as applied to claim 1-6 above, and further in view of Holl (US PG Pub. 2015/0207133 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Simmonds discloses a battery pack (ref. 600) with a plurality of cells (ref. 604, para. 0066, figure 6) contained in a casing (ref. 602). Simmonds performs the method for inhibiting thermal runway (ref. 500, figure 5) independently for each of the battery cells (para. 0061, 0066). The combination of Simmonds Plasko and Oosaki as discussed above with respect to claim 1 would disclose each cell comprising of passive control system and the adjacent cells, that are adjacent to a passively protected cell are protected by reducing the state of charge of the passively protected cell to 10 % state of charge (para. 0044, 0061).
The claim limitation “wherein optionally all external safety systems are disconnected from the battery module” recites a contingent limitation (MPEP 2111.04 (I)) of the battery module and rather than a structural limitation of it and therefore is not given any patentable weight. The claim limitation “an external application of heat will not trigger a thermal runaway event” is a is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113). The implied structure is simply the cell with an anode-cathode stack with a passive control system as claimed in claim 1 and which modified Simmonds discloses as set forth above.
Simmonds fails to discloses reducing the state-of-charge of the passively protected cell to less than 10 % state-of charge.
Holl discloses a battery including a housing and an individual cell with at least one positive and at least one negative electrode arranged in the housing, a positive tap pole connected to the at least one positive electrode, a negative tap pole connected to the at least one negative electrode, at least one thermal switch (bimetallic switch, para. 0018) which, in the event of an increase in temperature within the housing beyond a temperature threshold value, changes its switching state as a result of a temperature-induced expansion and/or deformation and trips a safety mechanism which suppresses a further increase in temperature (para. 0008-0009). Holl further discloses a load resistor connected between the positive tap pole and/or contact pole and the negative tap pole and/or contact pole (para. 0038). Holl further discloses when the load resistor connects between the poles, the battery may be discharged via the load resistor when the positive tap pole and/or contact pole electrically connects to the negative tap pole and/or contact pole by the closing of thermal switch (para. 0039). Holl further discloses the battery can be fully discharged when the switch is closed (para. 0051). At full discharge the SOC would be less than 10 % there by meeting the claim limitation. Holl discloses that discharging of this kind prevents an increase in voltage within the cell and therefore possibly also a further increase in temperature within the housing (para. 0039).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Simmonds, Plasko and Oosaki as discussed with respect to claims 1, 3 and 7 discloses a battery module wherein a passive protection from the passive control system is not from a control module or battery management system. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, passive protection from the passive control system refers to the protection afforded by the control block and thermal switch recited in claim 1 and 3. Therefore it would not require any more weight beyond the limitation that followed. Claim 8 does not recite any additional structural element to claim 1. (MPEP 2114(II)). Claim 8 is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 and 7, above, the combination of Simmonds, Plasko and Oosaki resulting in a cell having all of the claimed structural feature as presently claimed and would therefore be capable of performing the intended function or operation as claimed. The optional limitations are optional and therefore not addressed.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Simmonds, Plasko and Oosaki as discussed above with respect to claim 1, 3 and 7 discloses a battery module wherein discloses passive protection of the passive control system is provided on a one-to-one basis between the thermal switch and the cell. Simmonds discloses discharging of individual cells to a safe SOC, when the measured temperature is at or above the self-heating temperature, as quickly as possible (para. 0061).
The combination of Simmonds, Plasko and Oosaki discloses passive protection system does not monitor any signals, digital means, sensors that generate signals, Field Effect Transistors or any digital switches, without a central controller as discussed above with respect to claims 1, 3, 7, and 8.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Simmonds, Plasko and Oosaki discloses battery module with the passive control system is configured to discharge energy in the cell to reduce chance of thermal runaway in adjacent cells due to heat from the cell, as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 7. Claim 11 recites only results attributable to the arrangement recited in claim 1 and 7 and does not recite any additional structural element. (MPEP 2114(II))
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmonds (US 2017/0018817 A1) in view of Plasko (US Pat. 6084501) and Oosaki (US Pat. 5,689, 173) as applied to claim 1-6 above, and further in view of Keyser (US PG Pub. 2013/0209841 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Simmonds discloses the control system is configured to discharge energy in the cell to minimum SOC when the cell reaches the threshold temperature as quickly as possible (para. 0061)
Simmonds fails to disclose the predetermined amount of time being between 30 seconds and 3 minutes.
Keyser discloses a passive safety device, a switch placed inside the battery which generates an electrical short when the battery reaches a predetermined temperature to discharge the cell to a safe state in the case that an unsafe high temperature ever occurs during its life (para. 0022, 0025, 0051). Keyser further discloses one side of the switch is connected to the anode and the other side of the switch is connected to the cathode and once switch (the low-melting, point material or PCM) melts, it connects the anode or negative side of the cell to the cathode or positive side of the cell through the resistor (para. 0044). Keyser further discloses the impedance/resistance of the resistor can be selected such that a known current travels through the resistor (para. 0044). Keyser discloses this load is thermally and electrically tuned for optimal discharge of the cell (para. 0050). Keyser discloses with respect to electrical tuning, the load is sized to discharge the cell in as short a period of time as possible, but without causing excessive temperature rise inside the cell due to electrochemical discharge processes (para. 0050) and dissipating the stored energy in a controlled manner may help prevent or lessen the severity of a possible thermal event (para. 0051). Keyser establishes the discharge time as a result effective variable set through selection of the resistance to allow known current to pass through the resistor and the load sized to discharge the cell in as short a period of time as possible as too short a period produces excessive temperature rise inside the cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to control the discharge time to help prevent or lessen the severity of a possible thermal event as taught by Keyser. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have arrived at the claimed range for discharge time by routine optimization to achieve a battery with passive control system with suitable characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788
08/10/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights