DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 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 6 states that “the melting member has a rectangular shape having a width greater than or equal to the predetermined area formed by the at least one heating wire.” It is unclear how the claimed width of the melting member can be greater than or equal to the predetermined area, since a one-dimensional measurement of width is being directly compared a two-dimensional measurement of area. The claim does not provide a clear basis for determining when the width of the melting member satisfies the recited relationship with the predetermined area, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For examination purposes, claim 6 will be interpreted as requiring the rectangular melting member to have dimensions sufficient to encompass the predetermined area formed by the at least one heating wire.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al (US 2012/0263982 A1) in view of Kepler et al (US 2016/0344004 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yasui discloses a venting device for a battery system (battery pack with gas release duct (abstract), comprising:
A venting part disposed on one surface of a case accommodating at least one battery cell and selectively forming a through-hole in the case (Figures 4-8 and 11-12; gas release duct (42) with a selectively formed exit (44) is disposed on the surface of a battery pack case (40) that contains multiple battery modules (200); [0051] – [0055]);
A gas sensor disposed inside or on one surface of the case and detecting at least one type of gas (gas sensor can be equipped with the battery modules (200) inside the battery pack case (40) to detect gas generation; [0115]); and
The venting part includes a melting member melted at a predetermined temperature or higher to form the through-hole (Figure 8; gas release duct (42) contains a lid (53) that can be melted to form a through-hole; [0089]).
Yasui does not disclose a temperature varying part that varies a temperature of the venting part.
Kepler, drawn to battery art (abstract), teaches the use of a heating element to heat the packaging seal of a battery to the point that it delaminates in order to open a pathway for gas release ([0027]). Kepler also teaches that it is beneficial to have a heating element that rapidly heats the packaging seal in order to facilitate the quick discharge of gas upon its detection to minimize the risk of a fire igniting within the battery ([0030] – [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the heating element taught by Kepler into the battery pack of Yasui by having it work in concert with the gas release duct. Doing so would ensure that the lid in the gas release duct would melt fast enough to rapidly discharge any accumulated gas buildup, reducing the risk of a fire igniting within the battery.
Regarding claim 2, Yasui in view of Kepler discloses the venting device as discussed above in claim 1. Neither Yasui or Kepler expressly discloses a controller that controls the temperature varying part based on gas detection information received from the gas sensor. Kepler does, however, teach the use of a heating element ([0027]) and a fault switch that functions as a controller to activate the heating element when an appropriate pressure has been detected ([0006] and [0020] – [0021]). Yasui, meanwhile, teaches that a gas sensor can be utilized within the battery modules to detect gas discharge from faulty cells ([0115]). Yasui also discloses a gas release duct that utilizes the data obtained from the gas sensor to activate an opening member that triggers the formation of a through-hole ([0115]).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would have been obvious to incorporate the heating mechanism of Kepler into the battery pack of Yasui. In view of Kepler’s teaching of a fault switch for controlling activation of the heating element, it would have been further obvious to incorporate Kepler’s control arrangement into Yasui to selectively activate the heating element upon detection of an abnormality within the battery. This would ensure that the heating element is timely activated, reducing the risk of a fire igniting in the battery. Since Yasui already teaches detecting gas discharged from a faulty cell with a gas sensor and using information from the gas sensor to activate an opening member of the gas release duct, it would have been obvious to utilize the gas detection information from Yasui as the triggering input for the controller incorporated from Kepler. Such a modification would have amounted to the simple substitution of one known battery abnormality detection input for another to obtain the predictable result of activating the heating element based on detection of abnormal conditions within the battery [MPEP 2143 (I)(B)].
Regarding claim 3, Yasui in view of Kepler discloses the venting device as discussed above in claim 2. Neither Yasui or Kepler expressly discloses a controller that includes a circuit unit that applies power to the temperature varying part based on gas detection information. Kepler does, however, teach that the fault switch and the heating element are electrically connected in a circuit so that activation of the fault switch supplies power to the heating element ([0042] and [0053]). In view of the modifications of Yasui as discussed above in claim 2, information generated by a gas sensor can be used in conjunction with a controller. If the controller and temperature varying part are in a circuit as disclosed by Kepler, then it would necessarily follow that Yasui would utilize the gas detection information to prompt the controller to close that circuit to supply power to the temperature varying part.
Regarding claim 4, Yasui in view of Kepler discloses the venting device as discussed above in claim 1. Kepler further disclose that the temperature varying part includes at least one heating wire (heating element can be a wire; [0041]). Kepler also discloses that the wire can be disposed between layers of the packaging seal ([0041]). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to position the heating wire incorporated into Yasui between the battery case and the meltable lid in the gas release duct. This would have resulted in the heating wire being in close proximity with the lid, ensuring efficient transfer of heat to facilitate the rapid melting of the lid to quickly create a through-hole.
Regarding claim 5, Yasui in view of Kepler discloses the venting device as discussed above in claim 4, including a heating wire configured to heat the melting member. Neither Yasui or Kepler expressly discloses that the heating wire is formed in the shape of a circle having a predetermined diameter and that the melting member has a circular shape having a diameter greater than or equal to the predetermined diameter of the circle formed by the heating wire.
It would have, however, been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the shape of both the heating wire and the melting member to correspond to the area of the through-hole being utilized to vent gas. This includes providing both the heating wire and the melting member in a circular shape for a circular through-hole. It would have further been an obvious matter of relative sizing to configure the diameter of the circular melting member to be equal to or greater than the diameter of the circular heating wire to ensure that the heating wire is in complete contact with the melting member so that heat is effectively transferred. The courts have found that changes in relative dimensions [MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)] and shape [MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)] are not considered to be patentable without a new or unexpected result. Since the shape and relative dimensions of the melting member and heating wire do not impart any new or specific benefit to the venting device, they are not considered to be patentably distinguishing features.
Regarding claim 6, Yasui in view of Kepler discloses the venting device as discussed above in 4, including a heating wire configured to heat the melting member. Neither Yasui or Kepler expressly discloses that the heating wire has a zigzag shape in a predetermined area or that the melting member has a rectangular shape with a width greater than or equal to the predetermined area formed by the heating wire.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the shape of the heating wire and the melting member to correspond to the area of the through-hole being utilized to vent gas. This includes arranging the heating wire in a zigzag shape within a predetermined rectangular area and providing the melting member with a corresponding rectangular shape. Such a configuration would allow the heating wire to occupy a significant portion of the predetermined area dedicated to it while still conforming to its boundaries. This would result in the heating wire performing rapid heating of the melting member due to the substantial overlap of the heating wire and the melting member. It would have further been an obvious matter of relative sizing to provide a melting member with dimensions sufficient to encompass the predetermined area occupied by the heating wire, as it would permitting the heat generated by the heating wire to be transferred to the melting member over its entire form. The courts have found that changes in relative dimensions [MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)] and shape [MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)] are not considered to be patentable without a new or unexpected result. Since the shape and relative dimensions of the melting member and heating wire do not impart any new or specific benefit to the venting device, they are not considered to be patentably distinguishing features.
Regarding claim 7, Yasui in view of Kepler discloses the venting device as discussed above in claim 4. Kepler further discloses that at least one heating wire includes a nichrome wire (heating element can include a nichrome wire; [0041]).
Regarding claim 9, Yasui in view of Kepler discloses the venting device as discussed above in claim 1. Yasui further discloses a battery system with a case accommodating at least one battery cell (battery pack (300) includes a case (40) that accommodates a plurality of battery modules (200) that each accommodate a plurality of battery cells (100); [0045] – [0051]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al (US 2012/0263982 A1) in view of Kepler et al (US 2016/0344004 A1) and Tsang et al (US 10,734,625 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Yasui in view of Kepler discloses the venting device as discussed above in claim 1, including a melting member. Neither Yasui or Kepler expressly discloses that the melting member is an elastomer.
Tsang, disclosing a safety vent assembly for a battery (abstract), discloses that a melting member can be comprised of elastomer (urging member is formed of a heat shrinkable material that can be comprised of an elastomer such as neoprene or Vito; [0036]). Tsang further teaches that the urging member can melt upon reaching a predetermined temperature to facilitate the opening of a venting path to release gas from a battery ([0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have to formed the melting member of Yasui out of an elastomer as taught by Tsang. Tsang teaches that elastomeric materials are suitable as melting members in a venting device of a battery, as they are capable of melting upon reaching a predetermined temperature to facilitate gas release. Incorporating this elastomeric material into the melting member of Yasui would have amounted to the simple substitution of one known thermally responsive material for another to obtain the predictable result of providing a melting member suitable for a venting device [MPEP 2143 (I) (B)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dao et al (US 2022/0352594 A1) discloses a battery pack with a housing that contains a plurality of battery cells. Dao also teaches the use of vent systems in the housing of the battery pack to facilitate the venting of gas from inside the battery pack to outside the casing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 4 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 Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/J.T.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights