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 Interpretation
Regarding Claim 15 and its dependent claims, and particularly in view of Claims 19 and 20, recitations of temperature and pressure sensors being provided in the cell housing are interpreted as recitations of temperature and pressure sensors being provided within the cell housing.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 5. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 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 1 recites the limitation "the cell can" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Matsuura (DE102016112664A1, machine translation), which was included in the applicant’s information disclosure.
Claims 1 and 9: Matsuura teaches a an embodiment of a lithium ion battery (battery cell) (Fig. 1, Element 1; ¶ 0033) with a battery case (cell housing) (Fig. 2, Element 10); ¶ 0033) containing a flat wound electrode body (electrode stack) (Fig. 2, Element 50; ¶ 0034) comprising a positive electrode (Fig. 2, Element 55; ¶ 0034), a negative electrode (Fig. 2, Element 56; ¶ 0034), and a separator (Fig. 2, Element 57; ¶ 0034 ). The positive electrode communicates with the positive electrode outer terminal (terminal) (Fig. 2, Element 37; ¶ 0036) via the positive electrode connection part (tab) (Fig. 2, Elements 35; ¶ 0036), and the negative electrode communicates with the negative electrode outer terminal (terminal) (Fig. 2, Element 47; ¶ 0036) via the negative electrode connection part (tab) (Fig. 2, Element 45; ¶ 0037). A safety valve (vent) (Fig. 2, Element 13j; ¶ 0038) and a gas discharge valve (relief valve) with a valve body (valve member) (Fig. 4, Element 63; ¶ 0051) which is biased to a closed position by a spring (Fig. 4, Element 65 ¶ 0050), are provided in the battery case, with the gas discharge valve opening at a lower pressure (relief pressure) than the safety valve (Claims, Lines 17-25).
Claims 3 and 11: Matsuura teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 9 above. Matsuura also teaches a safety valve (Fig, 4, Elements 13j) and a gas discharge valve (Fig. 4, Element 60) which are both disposed on top of the battery case (Fig. 4, Element 10).
Claims 5 and 9: Matsuura teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Matsuura further teaches an embodiment of a gas discharge valve with a valve body (Fig. 4, Element 63; ¶ 0051) which is biased to a closed position by a spring (Fig. 4, Element 65 ¶ 0050).
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 2, 4, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Saab, et al. (DE1020211134115A1).
Claims 2 and 10: Matsuura teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 9 above, but fails to teach a relief valve and a vent disposed at opposite ends of the cell housing. Saab teaches that an embodiment of a battery pack housing (cell housing) (Fig. 1, Element 102; ¶ 00013) may have venting structures disposed on opposite ends of the battery pack housing; (Fig. 1, Element 112a; ¶ 00013), which could be a burst disc (vent) (Fig. 4, Element 400; ¶ 0020), and (Fig. 1, Element 110b; ¶ 0013), which could be an umbrella valve (relief valve) (Fig 3., Element 300; ¶ 0019). A particular disposition of the vent and relief valve assemblies would prevent damage to protruding valves and ingress of water into the battery pack housing (¶¶0007-0008). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use the disposition of the vent and relief valve assemblies of Saab in the battery case of Matsuura because Saab teaches that this is an operative configuration.
Claims 4 and 12: Matsuura teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 9 above, but fails to teach a relief valve integrated into a vent. Saab teaches an embodiment of a battery pack housing (cell housing) (Fig. 1, Element 102; ¶ 00014) which may include an integrated umbrella valve (relief valve) (Fig. 3, Element 300; ¶ 0025), radial support valve (Fig. 5, Element 500; ¶ 0025), and rupture disc (vent) assembly (Fig. 6, Element 600; ¶ 0025), and where first, second, and possibly third venting structures may be configured to vent at each of three different flow rates (¶ 0004). Combining the relief valve and the vent would reduce the number of penetrations required to dispose two different pressure relief measures in the cell housing (¶0009). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use the integrated umbrella valve and rupture disc assembly of Saab in the battery case of Matsuura because Saab teaches an umbrella valve integrated with a rupture disc.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dagger, et al. (DE102022205366A1, machine translation).
Claims 6 and 13: Matsuura teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 9 above, but fails to teach a cell housing lined with a membrane. Dagger teaches an embodiment of a battery cell casing (cell housing) (Fig.4, Element 28; ¶¶ 0042, 0063-0065) partly lined with a gas permeable membrane (Fig. 4, Element 38; ¶¶ 0042, 0063-0065). Dagger teaches that using a gas permeable membrane lining as a vent would provide nondestructive pressure relief through continuous degassing (¶ 0028) until pressure inside the battery cell becomes too great, whereupon the membrane would break to efficiently remove the gas (¶¶ 0029, 0032). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use the gas permeable membrane of Dagger in the safety valve of Matsuura because Dagger teaches that using a gas permeable membrane lining as a vent would provide nondestructive pressure relief through continuous degassing until pressure inside the battery cell becomes too great, whereupon the membrane would break to efficiently remove the gas.
Claims 7 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Fukunaga, et al. (JP2014170649A, machine translation).
Claim 7 and 14: Matsuura teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above, is silent as to relief valve release pressure. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have looked to related art to find operative release pressure for the relief valve. Fukunaga teaches a pressure control valve (relief valve) for a battery, with an operating pressure range of 150 kPa-550 kPa (¶¶ 0059-0061). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected the pressure control valve of Fukunaga in the operating pressure range of 150 kPa-300 kPa in the battery case of Matsuura because Fukunaga teaches that 150 kPa-550 kPa is a suitable pressure for pressure control in batteries.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dandl, et al. (US 2023/0387515A1).
Claim 8: Matsuura teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above, but is silent as to vent burst pressure. Dandl teaches a bursting membrane (vent) for emergency venting of a battery cell with a bursting pressure range of 6-15 bar (¶ 0026), i.e., 600-1500 kPa. One of ordinary skill at the time of filing would have looked to related art for operative bursting pressure ranges for bursting membranes in batteries. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use the bursting membrane of Dandl in an operating range of 800-1500 kPa in the battery casing of Matsuura because Dandl teaches that 600-1500 kPa is a suitable bursting pressure range for bursting membranes in batteries.
Claims 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura, and further in view of Ruhl, et al. (DE102014116451A1).
Claim 15: Matsuura teaches a an embodiment of lithium ion battery (battery cell) (Fig. 1, Element 1; ¶ 0033) with a battery case (cell housing) (Fig. 2, Element 10); ¶ 0033) containing a flat wound electrode body (electrode stack) (Fig. 2, Element 50; ¶ 0034) comprising a positive electrode (Fig. 2, Element 55; ¶ 0034), a negative electrode (Fig. 2, Element 56; ¶ 0034) and a separator (Fig. 2, Element 57; ¶ 0034 ).The positive electrode communicates with the positive electrode outer terminal (terminal) (Fig. 2, Element 37; ¶ 0036) via the positive electrode connection part (tab) (Fig. 2, Elements 35; ¶ 0036), with the positive electrode outer terminal (terminal (Fig. 2, Element 37; ¶ 0036) in electrical communication with the positive electrode fixing member (terminal on cell housing) (Fig. 2, Element 39; ¶ 0036). The negative electrode communicates with the negative electrode outer terminal (terminal) (Fig. 2, Element 47; ¶ 0037) via the negative electrode connection part (tab) (Fig. 2, Element 45; ¶ 0037). A safety valve (vent) (Fig. 2, Element 13j; ¶ 0038) is provided in the battery case (cell housing). Matsuura does not teach either a temperature sensor or a pressure sensor provided in the cell housing, or a battery controller. Ruhl teaches a battery management system (battery controller) configured to receive signals from a plurality of sensors within the cell housing (in the cell housing) which can include a temperature sensor (Fig 11, Elements 200, 110; ¶¶ 0025, 0088-0089). Using the sensor and battery management system of Ruhl with the battery case of Matsuura would be beneficial to ensure that temperature information from the battery cell could be used to manage operation of the battery cell. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use the sensor and battery management system of Ruhl with the battery case of Matsuura because Ruhl teaches a battery management system in communication with at least a temperature sensor within a battery cell.
Claim 16: Matsuura and Ruhl combined teach all the limitations of Claim 15. Ruhl further teaches that embodiments may have temperature sensors located inside or outside of a battery cell (¶¶ 0090-0091), i.e., the sensors may be placed with a high degree of freedom. Thus, for a given placement of a vent on the battery case of Matsuura, the temperature sensor of Ruhl could be freely placed in opposition to it. Also, rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim 19: Matsuura and Ruhl combined teach all the limitations of Claim 15. Ruhl further teaches that the battery management system may initiate a shutdown of a battery cell in response to a signal from a sensor array (Fig. 11, Element 200; ¶ 0070), which can include a temperature sensor (¶¶ 0025, 0088-0089), when the temperature exceeds a threshold value.
Claim 20: Matsuura and Ruhl combined teach all the limitations of Claim 15. Ruhl further teaches that the battery management system may initiate a shutdown of a battery cell in response to a signal from a sensor array (Fig. 11, Element 200; ¶ 0070), which can include a pressure sensor (¶¶ 0025, 0088-0089), when the pressure exceeds a threshold value.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura in view of Ruhl, as applied to Claim 15, and further in view of Dagger for the same reasons regarding Claim 6.
Claim 17: Matsuura and Ruhl combined teach all the limitations of Claim 15, but do not teach a membrane lining the cell housing. Dagger teaches an embodiment of a battery cell casing (cell housing) (Fig.4, Element 28; ¶¶ 0042, 0063-0065) partly lined with a gas permeable membrane (membrane lining) (Fig. 4, Element 38; ¶¶ 0042, 0063-0065). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use the gas permeable membrane of Dagger in the safety valve of Matsuura because Dagger teaches that using a gas permeable membrane lining as a vent would provide nondestructive pressure relief through continuous degassing (¶ 0028) until pressure inside the battery cell becomes too great, whereupon the membrane would break to efficiently remove the gas (¶¶ 0029, 0032).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura, and further in view of Ruhl and Donovan, et al. (US 2022/0077442A1).
Claim 18: Matsuura and Ruhl combined teach all the limitations of Claim 15, but do not teach an insulating material surrounding the electrode stack. Donovan teaches an embodiment of battery units which may comprise protective wrapping of thermally insulating material (Fig. 4A, Elements 412, 408; ¶0004). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use the protective wrapping of thermally insulating material of Donovan with the batteries of Matsuura because Donovan teaches that providing thermal insulation would be a desired advantage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TREVOR MICHAEL SACCUCCI whose telephone number is (571)270-1867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Michael B Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/TREVOR MICHAEL SACCUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights