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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/14/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2-16 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.
Regarding claim 2, Claim 2 recites the limitation "a top of the battery cell" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 2 because claim 2 does not recite “a battery cell” prior to the recitation in line 3. Claim 1 recites “a plurality of overlapped battery cells” and it is unclear in claim 2 that which cell is being referenced.
Claims 3-16 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 recites the limitation " the adjacent insert panel" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 9 because claim 9 does not recite “an adjacent insert panel” prior to the recitation in lines 3-4. “The adjacent insert panel” is further indefinite, because claim 9 does not specify which of the insert panels are adjacent.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20230016532 A, citations from enclosed machine translation)
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a battery module ([0026]; Figs 1, 4; battery module 10) comprising: a plurality of overlapped battery cells ([0026-0027]; Figs 1, 4; battery cells 100 in an overlapped arrangement in horizontal direction); and an insert panel inserted between the overlapped battery cells ([0036-0037], Figs. 2, 3, 4; angle frames 300 including frame body 310 disposed between adjacent battery cells), the insert panel including a top flange extended in an overlapping direction of the battery cells above the battery cells ([0036, 0038], Figs. 3, 4, venting guider 330 extending in horizontal direction from the upper end of frame body 310 above cells 100).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Lee further teaches a limitation wherein the top flange of the insert panel is disposed to be spaced upwardly apart from a top of the battery cell (Figs. 1, 4; [0038]; venting guider 330 is spaced from the upper surface of battery cell 100).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches all limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Lee further teaches a limitation wherein the insert panel further comprises: a partition inserted between two adjacent battery cells (Figs. 1, 4, [0036-0037], frame body 310 located between adjacent battery cells); and the top flange extending from a top of the partition (Figs. 1, 4; [0038], venting guider 330 extending from the upper end of frame body 310).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches all limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Lee further teaches a limitation wherein the top flange has a shape extending from the partition toward one side of the battery module ([0038]; Figs. 1, 4; venting guider 330 extends in one direction from frame body 310 along the horizontal direction of the module housing 200).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches all limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Lee further teaches a limitation wherein the battery module further comprises a plurality of the insert panels, and wherein the top flanges of the plurality of the insert panels are all arranged to face in one direction ([0033]; Figs. 1, 4; a plurality of angle frames 300 are provided and venting guiders 330 extend in the same direction).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches all limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Lee further teaches a limitation wherein the top flange has a shape extending from the partition toward both of opposed sides of the battery module ([0061]; Figs. 7, 8; venting guider 530 extends in both horizontal directions from frame body 510 along the horizontal direction of the module housing 200).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches all limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Lee further teaches a limitation wherein the top flange is extended in a range of more than 50% but less than 100% of a width from its own partition to another partition of the adjacent insert panel (Fig. 4).
Specifically, Lee teaches venting guider 330 extending from frame body 310 approximately across the width of battery cell 100 ([0038]; Fig. 4). The spacing between adjacent frame bodies 310 is greater than the width of a battery cell 100 because a battery cell is disposed therebetween ([0036-[0038; Fig. 4). Accordingly, the lateral extension of venting guider 330 is greater than one-half, but less than the entire spacing between adjacent frame bodies 310, corresponding to the claimed range.
While examiner recognizes figures are not necessarily drawn to scale, there is apparent spatial separation between each segment 330, which is less than half the distance therebetween, shown in the Lee figures which appears to not only satisfy but also anticipate the limitation of instant claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches all limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Lee further teaches a battery module cover disposed above the top flange of the insert panel and covering an upper side of the entire battery module (Fig. 4, [0028], module housing 200 disposed above venting guider 330 and covering the battery module).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches all limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Lee further teaches a limitation wherein the battery module cover is spaced upwardly apart from the top flange of the insert panel ([0038], Fig. 4, gap G between top of module housing 200 and venting guider 330).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches all limitations of claim 12 as stated above. Lee further teaches a limitation wherein a distance at which the battery module cover is spaced apart from the top flange of the insert panel is less than or equal to an extended width of the top flange of the insert panel (Fig. 4, [0038]).
Specifically, Lee teaches gap G between module housing 200 and venting guider 330 and further teaches venting guider 330 extending laterally from frame body 310 ([0038]). As illustrated in Fig. 4, the vertical spacing G is less than the lateral extension of venting guider 330 measured from frame body 310 to the end of venting guider 330.
While examiner recognizes figures are not necessarily drawn to scale, Fig. 4 clearly shows that vertical spacing G is smaller than the lateral extension of venting guider 330 measured from frame body 310 to the end of venting guider 330 which appears to not only satisfy but also anticipate the limitation of instant claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches all limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Lee further teaches a limitation wherein the insert panel further comprises a fireproof material ([0040, 0041], insulating pad 400 disposed adjacent frame body 310 and made of a flame-retardant material).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches all limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Lee further teaches a limitation wherein the insert panel further comprises a plurality of the insert panels, and wherein the top flanges provided in the plurality of insert panels are all disposed at the same height (Fig. 4; a plurality of angle frames 300 each include venting guider 330 disposed at the upper end of frame body 310 and positioned at the same height relative to the battery cells and module housing) .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230291064 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches all limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Lee does not teach a limitation wherein a bottom of the partition of the insert panel is inserted into a gap filler below the battery cells.
However, Kim teaches this limitation. Kim teaches an equivalent thermally conductive component in a battery module with thermal propagation prevention structure (see Kim [0050, 0055], see Lee [0034]). Specifically, Kim teaches that a space between the edge of the battery cells 100 and one surface of the first plate 211 may be filled with a thermally conductive resin to increase the heat transfer rate from the battery cells to the cooling structure ([0065], Fig. 6).
The instant application explains that the purpose of the claimed gap filler is to function as a heat-transfer medium. Specifically, the instant specification states that when the bottom of the partition of the insert panel is inserted into the gap filler, heat transferred from the battery cells through the partition is more effectively dissipated through the gap filler (instant specification, [0049-0050]). Accordingly, Kim's thermally conductive resin, which occupies the space adjacent the battery cells and enhances heat transfer to the cooling structure, performs substantially the same heat-transfer function as the claimed “gap filler”.
Further, Kim, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are directed to battery modules designed to improve thermal management and suppress thermal propagation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by providing Kim's thermally conductive resin within the gap surrounding the lower portion of Lee's insert panel so that the partition is embedded in a thermally conductive medium to improve heat transfer from to the cooling structure as taught by Kim ([0065]).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 7 and 3 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20250253484 A1, with foreign application priority date of 2020).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches all limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Lee further teach an intermediate panel between the battery cells and between two of the insert panels ([0040], Fig. 4, insulation pad 400 between battery cells and between two of the angle frames 300).
Lee does not teach a limitation wherein a top of the intermediate panel protrudes more upwardly than the top of the battery cell and is positioned lower than the top flange of the two insert panels.
However, Park teaches this limitation. Specifically, Park teaches a thermal barrier 240 interposed between adjacent cell covers 200 to prevent propagation of heat between adjacent battery cells ([0154-0155], Fig. 7). As illustrated in Fig. 7, thermal barrier 240 extends upwardly beyond the upper edge of the battery cell while remaining below the upper cover portions 212, 222 of the adjacent cell covers (Figs. 4, 7). Thus, Park teaches an intermediate insulating member positioned between adjacent battery cells having a height greater than the battery cell itself while remaining below the surrounding upper structural members. Park further teaches that the thermal barrier is formed of an insulating material for preventing heat propagation between adjacent cells ([0154-0155]).
Further, Park, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are directed to the same field of battery modules and thermal runaway mitigation. The insulation pad 400 of Lee and the thermal barrier 240 of Park both serve to insulate between battery cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee's intermediate panel to extend upwardly beyond the battery cell while remaining below the top flanges of the insert panels, as taught by Park for preventing heat propagation between adjacent cells ([0154-0155]).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches all limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Lee does not teach a limitation wherein the insert panel further comprises metal, and wherein the partition of the insert panel is overlapped with a silicone or fireproof polyurethane (PU).
However, Park teaches this limitation. Specifically, Park teaches that cell cover 200 may be made of a metal material, particularly steel such as stainless steel (SUS), to provide excellent mechanical strength and rigidity for supporting the battery cells ([0094-0096], Figs. 2, 7). The cell cover 200 surrounds the upper edge and side surfaces of the battery cell, thereby functioning as a structural barrier between adjacent battery cells . Moreover, Park teaches that the cell cover includes upper cover portions that define an empty separation space through which venting gas generated during thermal runaway is guided and discharged ([0120], Fig. 4). Accordingly, cell cover 200 is a structural members disposed adjacent to the battery cells within the battery module to provide excellent mechanical strength ([0094-0096]) and thermal runway ([0119-0120)].
Park further teaches that a flame suppression pad disposed between adjacent cell covers may comprise a metal plate coated with insulation, and that the flame suppression pad may be formed of heat-resistant materials including silicone ([0099]).
Further, Park, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are directed to the same field of battery modules and thermal runaway mitigation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee's insert panel to comprise metal and to provide a silicone insulating layer over at least a portion thereof, as taught by Park, in order to improve structural rigidity while maintaining thermal insulation ([0094-0096, 0099]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as modified by Kim, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20250253484 A1, with foreign application priority date of 2020).
Regarding claim 10, Lee, as modified by Kim, teaches all limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Modified Lee does not teach a limitation wherein the insert panel further comprises metal.
However, Park teaches this limitation. Specifically, Park teaches that cell cover 200 may be made of a metal material, particularly steel such as stainless steel (SUS), to provide excellent mechanical strength and rigidity for supporting the battery cells ([0094-0096], Figs. 2, 7). The cell cover 200 surrounds the upper edge and side surfaces of the battery cell, thereby functioning as a structural barrier between adjacent battery cells . Moreover, Park teaches that the cell cover includes upper cover portions that define an empty separation space through which venting gas generated during thermal runaway is guided and discharged ([0120], Fig. 4). Accordingly, cell cover 200 is a structural members disposed adjacent to the battery cells within the battery module to provide excellent mechanical strength ([0094-0096]) and thermal runway ([0119-0120)].
Further, Park, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are directed to the same field of battery modules and thermal runaway mitigation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee's insert panel to comprise metal in order to improve structural rigidity as taught by Park ([0094-0096]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights