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 Objections
Claims 3 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 uses the term “the first wall” and the term “the wall”. Consistent language is to be used throughout. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-9 and 15 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.
The term “close” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 4-9 and 15 are rejected as being dependent on claim 3.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (CN 11 207 2026).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a battery comprising:
a battery cell (4) (see para [0002], [0050], [0052]),
a pressure relief mechanism (42) (explosion proof valve, see para [0020], [0057]-[0059]) disposed on a first wall of the battery cell (4); and
a protection plate (7) (insulation protection component, para [0045], [0049], [0051]), wherein the protection plate is disposed opposite to the pressure relief mechanism (shown in fig. 3, see para [0053], e.g., component (7) is placed opposite the top of the cell (4) and valve (42); and
the protection plate is a polymer-based composite fiberboard (i.e., specifically board (71) comprises mica/glass/epoxy composite materials, see fig. 4, para [0053]).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses a battery according to claim 1, wherein the polymer-based composite fiberboard is a fiber-reinforced resin composite board (see para [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses a battery according to claim 1, characterized in that the battery cell is accommodated in a box (tray 22 and top cover (45) of battery core, see para 0054]), and the first wall is a wall of the battery cell (i.e., top cover (45) of the battery core, see para [0054], [0059]), the wall being close to a top cap of the box (11) and disposed opposite to the top cap (see figs. 1-8, para [0052]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses a battery according to claim 3, characterized in that the protection plate (7) is disposed between the top cap (11) and the first wall (45) (shown in figs. 1-8, see para [0052], [0054], [0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses a battery according to claim 5, characterized in that the protection plate is in a strip shape (i.e., see rectangular shape that meets “strip shape”, fig. 4), and a projection of the protection plate on the first wall covers the pressure relief mechanism (shown in figs. 1-8, see para [0050]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses a battery according to claim 6, characterized in that the protection plate (7) is connected to the top cap (11) by a bolt or adhesive (i.e., bolt, see figs. 3 and 4, para [0052]).
Regarding claim 15, Lin discloses a battery according to claim 5, characterized in that a heat insulation component is disposed between the protection plate and the box, and the heat insulation component is an air interlayer (i.e., air gap created by isolation strips 72, see para [0053]).
Regarding claim 20, Lin discloses an electrical device, characterized in that the electrical device comprises the battery according to claim 1, and the battery is configured to provide electrical energy (see para [0004]-[0009] and [0047]).
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above, and further as follows:
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Lin discloses a battery according to claim 5, but does not disclose that the protection plate (7) is identical to the top cap (11) in dimensions, nor that the protection plate is smaller than the top cap in dimensions.
Lin discloses the protection plate (7) is similarly sized to the top cap in dimensions (see figs. 3 and 4, i.e. connectors 12 are at edge of top cap (11) and protection plate (7), see para [0052]).
Whether the protection plate is identical in size (claim 6) or smaller (claim 7), it is optimization of a variable. The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a variable as differences in a variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such variable is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, modified Lin discloses a battery according to claim 1, characterized in that the battery cell (4) is accommodated in a box (21), and the first wall is a wall of the battery cell (see Lin para [0052]-[0059]).
Lin does not disclose the first wall being close to a bottom wall of the box and disposed opposite to the bottom wall, nor wherein the protection plate is disposed between the bottom wall and the first wall.
The limitation that the first wall, i.e., the pressure relief mechanism, is close to the bottom wall of the housing is simply a reversal of parts, i.e., top of the battery versus the bottom of the battery.
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery cell of Lin by reversing the location of the pressure relief mechanism from the top plate of the cell to the bottom plate of the cell as mere reversal of parts is an obvious modification. See In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.04.
Modified Lin discloses the protection plate is disposed between the first wall and the battery case (see para [0052]-[0059]) and therefore, as modified by reversal of parts, the protection plate is disposed between the bottom wall and the first wall, i.e., the bottom cell plate.
Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. as applied to claim 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 11 390 4039).
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses a battery according to claim 3, but does not disclose the battery is characterized in that the protection plate is integrated with the top cap.
Liu is analogous art to Lin as Liu discloses a battery (see abstract). Further Liu discloses a protective layer disposed on the surface of a casing body (see para [0007], [0039]). Liu discloses the layer on the casing body reduces the height and width of the battery giving the battery a greater advantage in capacity utilization (see para [0039]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the protection layer of Lin by disposing the protection layer to be integrated with the top cap as integrating the protection layer with the casing reduces the height and width, giving the battery a greater advantage in capacity utilization.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. as applied to claims 1, 10 and 12 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 9,088,031).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lin discloses a battery according to claim 12, but does not disclose a thermal management component is disposed between the protection plate and the first wall, and the thermal management component is configured to accommodate a fluid to regulate temperature for the battery cell.
Shimizu is analogous art to Lin as Shimizu discloses a battery (120) (see abstract, col. 7, lines 37-52). Shimizu discloses a thermal management component (20) (see fig. 7, abstract and para [0054]), wherein the thermal management component (20) is situated opposite and adjacent to the cell top and between the cell top and the top of the casing, i.e. top cap (see fig. 7, abstract and col. 7). Shimizu discloses the thermal management component is configured to accommodate a fluid to regulate temperature for the battery cell (see abstract). Shimizu discloses the thermal management component is able to adjust the temperature of the battery and to may rapidly reduce the internal temperature of the battery in the advent of abnormal temperatures (see col. 5, 20-25, and col. 7).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery structure of Lin with a thermal management component as disclosed by Liu because the thermal management component to adjust the temperature of the battery and to may rapidly reduce the internal temperature of the battery upon abnormal temperatures.
The thermal management component of Shimizu must be placed next to cells, for the thermal management component to function and therefore would result in the thermal management component being disposed between the protection plate and the first wall, with the protection relief mechanism in the wall (see MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lin discloses a battery according to claim 13, characterized in that the thermal management component comprises a fragile region (23) disposed opposite to the pressure relief mechanism (see Shimizu fig. 7), and the fragile region is configured to be broken by emissions of the battery cell when the pressure relief mechanism is actuated, so as to let the emissions pass through the fragile region (see col. 5 and 6).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 11 390 4039).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lin discloses a battery according to claim 10, but does not disclose the protection plate is integrated with the bottom wall of the box.
Liu is analogous art to Lin as Liu discloses a battery (see abstract). Further Liu discloses a protective layer disposed on the surface of a casing body (see para [0007], [0039]). Liu discloses the layer on the casing body reduces the height and width of the battery giving the battery a greater advantage in capacity utilization (see para [0039]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the protection layer of Lin by disposing the protection layer to be integrated with the top cap as integrating the protection layer with the casing reduces the height and width, giving the battery a greater advantage in capacity utilization.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feng et al. (CN 11 350 6935).
Regarding claim 16, Lin discloses a battery according to claim 1, characterized in that the protection plate comprises a plurality of fiber-reinforced resin layers, and each of the fiber-reinforced resin layers is compounded of a fiber material and a resin material (see para [0053]).
Lin does not disclose the resin material is silicon-based aerogel modified resin or high-temperature-resistant flame-retardant resin.
Feng is analogous art to Lin as Feng discloses a battery with a protection plate (see abstract). Feng discloses the protection plate comprises a protection plate of a fiber-reinforced resin layers is compounded of a fiber material and a resin material (see para [0031], [0036]-[0041]).
The Courts have held that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 17, modified Lin discloses a battery according to claim 16, wherein the fiber material is at least one of glass fiber, ceramic fiber, carbon fiber, quartz fiber, high silica fiber, aluminum silicate fiber, mullite fiber, silicon carbide fiber, silicon nitride fiber, alumina fiber, boron nitride fiber, basalt fiber, brucite fiber, attapulgite fiber, boron fiber, carbon nanotube fiber, aramid fiber, polyimide fiber, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fiber, and other fibers (see Lin para [0053] and Li para [0036]).
The Courts have held that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 18, modified Lin discloses a battery according to claim 17, characterized in that the fiber material is a ceramic fiber material, and the ceramic fiber material is silicon oxide or aluminum oxide (see Li para [0036]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lin discloses a battery according to claim 16, characterized a thickness of the protection plate is 0.2 mm to 5 mm (i.e., 1.5 mm to 3 mm, see Li para [0048]). Li further discloses the thickness (average diameter) of the nano-ceramic fiber is 200 nm (see para n[0072]), and therefore does not disclose the thickness of the fiber material is 6 μm to 100 μm.
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a variable as differences in a variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such variable is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights