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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, and 6-9 have been amended. Claims 21-22 are new. Claims 4-5 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, and 6-22 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
In view of the claim amendments, the 102 and 103 rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 7, 8, 12-13, 18, and 22 is 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 appears to describe the structure of the battery module in three dimensional space using a coordinate system (i.e., x-axis, y-axis, z-axis); claims 7, 8, and 22 appear to add a fourth, a fifth and sixth dimension (e.g., length direction, width direction, longitudinal direction) unrelated to the original coordinate system. Claims 12, and 13 have similar issues (length direction, width direction). Thus, claims 7-8, 12-13, and 22 are unclear. Examiner assumes the directions in the claims are based on the original coordinate system established in claim 1 (i.e., x, y, z).
Claim 22, which recites “the at least one first sub-vent” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 only recites “at least one vent” and “at least one sub-vent”, NOT “at least one first sub-vent”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 10-13, 17, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kitamura (UP 2016035817), hereinafter Kitamura.
Regarding Claims 1 and 17, Kitamura suggests a battery pack including at least one battery module comprising: a battery cell stack in which a plurality of battery cells are stacked in a first a y-axis direction (see e.g., Figs. 1-6, 8, 10); and a module frame (e.g., 44 adjacent 42, 13, etc.) accommodating the battery cell stack and having an inner surface (surface facing cells 1) and an outer surface (surface facing 42, away from cells 1), wherein at least one vent penetrating the inner surface and the outer surface is formed on a first surface of the module frame (e.g., 44 (adjacent 42) includes holes, e.g., 45’), and wherein a cover layer including a barrier layer (20) and at least one refractory layer (44, labelled in annotated Fig. 1) is positioned between the first surface of the module frame (44 adjacent 42) and the battery cell stack (see annotated Fig. 1), wherein the at least one refractory layer extends in the y-axis direction or an x-axis direction (see e.g., Fig.1(b), 1(c), Fig. 2, etc.), and includes at least one sub-vent (45a’) extending in a z-axis direction (e.g., vertical), and wherein the barrier layer (20) is a sheet extending in the y-axis direction or the x-axis direction (e.g., Fig 8), closes a hole of the at least one sub-vent of the at least one refractory layer and overlaps the at least one refractory layer (i.e., barrier is solid until it melts during gassing event; thus, the barrier layer overlaps with the refractory layer and closes a hole (e.g., 45’) of the sub-vent of the refractory layer).
Regarding Claim 2, Kitamura suggests the at least one vent is formed on an upper surface of the module frame (see figs, the holes (45) are formed going through wall 44, hence penetrating the inner surface and outer surface, hence are on an upper surface of the wall).
Regarding Claim 3, Kitamura suggests the barrier layer is positioned below the at least one refractory layer (see annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Kitamura suggests at least parts of the at least one vent and the at least one sub-vent overlap in the y axis direction of the battery module, see e.g., Fig. 2(b), 2(c).,
Regarding Claim 8, Kitamura suggests at least parts of the at least one vent and the at least one sub-vent overlap in the x axis direction of the battery module, see e.g., Fig. 2(b), 2(c).
Regarding Claim 10, Kitamura suggests one or more (e.g., two, three partition walls, [0026]) as a means to increase heat capacity of the battery and lowering the gas temperature of the gas due to heat absorption ([0031, 0045]), thereby suggesting the at least one refractory layer includes a first refractory layer and a second refractory layer, wherein the first refractory layer is positioned closer to the barrier layer than the second refractory layer (which is placed between the module frame (labelled in annotated Fig. 1) and the refractory layer adjacent the barrier layer).
Regarding Claims 11-13, Kitamura suggests the first refractory layer includes at least one first sub-vent, and wherein the second refractory layer includes at least one second sub-vent (45a, 45b, etc.); wherein at least parts of the at least one first sub-vent and the at least one second sub-vent overlap in the x-axis direction of the battery module and at least parts of the at least one first sub-vent and the at least one second sub-vent overlap in the y-axis direction of the battery module, see e.g., Fig. 2(b), 2(c).
Regarding Claim 21, as set forth under the rejections of claims 10-11 Kitamura suggests the first refractory layer includes at least one first sub-vent, the second refractory layer includes at least one second sub-vent. Further, Kitamura suggests the barrier layer melts to emit the gas vertically from the cells toward the refractory layers and module frame, thereby enabling the gas temperature to reduce ([0010, 0029]). In instances where a single battery emits gas (e.g., due to short circuit, or other emergency event) one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the barrier layer includes a first portion that overlaps the first refractory layer (e.g., above cells that have not emitted gas), a second portion that overlaps the second refractory layer (e.g., above cells that have not emitted gas), and a third portion that does not overlap the first refractory layer and the second refractory layer (e.g., above cells that have emitted hot gas, provided the barrier layer would melt and no longer cover the refractory layers) in a cross-sectional view of the battery module.
Regarding Claim 22, Kitamura suggests the at least one -vent is elongated in the x or y direction of the battery module (Fig. 1(b), 2(b)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura.
Regarding Claim 9, Kitamura appears to suggest the walls of the holes are ~90 degrees (see e.g., figures of Kitamura and Shimizu), hence no suggestion a hole of the at least one vent or the hole of the at least one sub-vent forms an acute angle with the first surface of the module frame; however, a 90 degree angle is close to an acute angle (e.g., 89.9 degrees), hence a prima face case of obviousness exists; the angles are so mathematically close that the difference between the angles is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Further, Kitamura suggest changing the size and shape of the holes (e.g., slit, circular/concentric) to adjust the flow of gas, hence controlling the temperature thereof ([0012]); for example, Kitamura suggests to suppress flow of the gas, holes in the honeycomb structure are smaller and denser on the lower side of the partition wall, [0011]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the hole with the expectation of controlling the flow of the gas, hence temperature of the gas. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art a hole of the at least one vent or the hole of the at least one sub-vent forms an acute angle (change in shape) with the first surface of the module frame, with the expectation of controlling/changing the flow of gas, hence the temperature of the gas to a desired value.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura further in view of Kim (US 2021/0074971, of record), hereinafter Kim
Regarding Claim 14, Kitamura suggests the barrier layer melts to exhaust the gas vertically, thereby decreasing the temperature of the gas and preventing thermal runaway ([0010, 0018, 0029]), but does not state the temperature at which the barrier layer melts as claimed (i.e., 300 °C or less). However, Kim suggests the temperature of combustible gas in a battery is typically between 170 °C to 400 °C, [0085]; in response to these temperatures, Kim elects to cool/reduce heat from spreading when the gas is higher than an selected reference temperature, [0028, 0098]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the barrier layer has a melting point between 170-400 °C (which overlaps with 300 °C or less), with the expectation of vertically exhausting the gas to decrease the temperature of the gas, thereby preventing thermal runaway.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0074971) and Ootsuki et al. (US 2021/0013460), hereinafter Kim and Ootsuki (both of record).
Regarding Claim 15, Kitamura does not suggest the barrier layer includes at least one extinguishing agent selected from a group consisting of inorganic carbonates, inorganic phosphates, and inorganic sulfates. However, Kim suggests a barrier layer (e.g., 140) is associated with a fire extinguisher agent (via sheet 150) which operates in response to high temperatures, thereby extinguishing a fire and cooling the battery, [0086-0090]. Oootsuki suggests suitable fire extinguishing agents (e.g., ammonium phosphate, fire calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate, etc.) are used to reduce the force of fire spouting out of a battery, thereby exerting high fire extinguishing performance and fire resistance, [0008, 0053-0054, 0065, 0118, 0130-0131, 0358, etc.]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the barrier layer includes a first extinguishing agent of an inorganic phosphate to cool the battery cell and extinguish flames caused by the combustible gas existing the battery vent, as suggested by Kim and Ootsuki.
Claim(s) 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura further in view of Shimizu (US 2017/0237055), hereinafter Shimizu (of record).
Regarding Claim 16, Kitamura suggests the refractory layer is made of a material that doesn’t melt (e.g., metal) at the gas temperature released from the battery cells because otherwise it could fall back toward the battery module ([0007, 0018]), but does not specifically suggest aluminum, stainless steel or clad metal. However, Shimizu suggests the refractory layers (32) are preferably made of metals (e.g., aluminum) that resist high pressure and temperature of the exhaust gas exiting the cell and have thermal conductivity and heat exchanging properties, see e.g., [0035]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the refractory layers are made of aluminum with the expectation of resisting high pressure and temperature of the exhaust gas exiting the cell, while also offering thermal conductivity and heat exchanging properties, as suggested by Shimizu.
Regarding Claim 18, Kitamura suggests the at least one vent is formed on the upper surface (examiner assumes outer surface as recited in claim 1) of the module frame (see rejection of claim 2).
Regarding Claims 18-19, Kitamura does not suggests the at least one second sub-vent is offset toward a front of the battery module with respect to the at least one first sub-vent, the at least one vent is offset toward a rear of the battery module with respect to the at least one second sub-vent; and wherein the at least one second sub-vent is offset toward a left side of the battery module with respect to the at least one first sub- vent, and wherein the at least one vent is offset toward a right side of the battery module with respect to the at least one second sub-vent. However, Shimizu suggests a plurality of refractory layers (32) each having holes; the holes are offset to enabling a change in direction of the exhaust gas a plurality of times and to elongate the flow route to reduce the pressure and temperature of the exhaust gas from the battery cell. thereby forming an acute angle with the first surface of the module frame.
With respect to claim 18, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art off set the second sub-vent at the front of the battery module with respect to the location of the first sub-vent to elongate the flow route of the gas from the battery cells, hence reducing the pressure and temperature of the exhaust gas from the battery cell which prevents components (e.g., apparatus 8) located near the exhaust port 22 from being damaged. With respect to claim 19, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the at least one second sub-vent (of the refractory layer) is offset toward a left side of the battery module with respect to the at least one first sub-vent (of the module frame), and wherein the at least one vent is offset toward a right side of the battery module with respect to the at least one second sub-vent with the expectation of elongating the flow route of the gas from the battery cells, hence reducing the pressure and temperature of the exhaust gas from the battery cell which prevents components (e.g., apparatus 8) located near the exhaust port 22 from being damaged, as suggested by Shimizu.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,431,584 in view of Kitamura and Shimizu (cited in the prior art rejections).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Both sets of claims are directed to a battery pack and module comprising a battery cell stack stacked in the first direction; the pack includes a frame and cover comprising a barrier layer and refractory layers. The claims recite holes (vent, sub-vent, etc.) and positions thereof, or are made obvious by the secondary references (e.g., to elongate a gas path) for the reasons set forth in the prior art rejections included in this Office action, and recite areas of overlap, or are made obvious by the secondary references as set forth in the prior art rejections (e.g., off-set to elongate a gas path, thereby improving safety). Both sets of claims further recite a protrusion of the barrier layer within the vents and materials making up the barrier layer and refractory layer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights