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 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term "sealingly abuts" is unclear and grammatically awkward. The term "abuts" generally describes physical contact, while "sealingly" modifies the manner of contact without clearly defining the structural relationship being required. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to recite the intended sealing relationship in clearer terms. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 5, and 7 objected to because of the following informalities: the use of the phrase "the at least one sealing element." The phrase is awkward because "the" is used before "at least one" without first establishing a singular sealing element. Applicant is advised to revise the phrase for clarity and grammatical consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz et al. (US 20230104209), hereinafter Lorenz, in view of Lica et al. (US 10431788), hereinafter Lica.
Regarding claim 1, Lorenz teaches:
A battery cell module comprising (Abstract):
a housing ([0014]. [0058-0061]);
a plurality of battery cells and separating elements arranged in the housing ([0001], [0061]);
wherein the battery cells are arranged in a stack with one of the separating elements interposed between each pair of adjacently arranged battery cells ([0003], [0060-0061], [0079-0080]);
wherein the stack is arranged in the housing ([0001-0003], [0056], [0060-0064]);
Lorenz fails to teach:
wherein the battery cells each comprise at least one cell connector protruding out of the respective battery cell at one end region of the respective battery cell;
wherein the battery cells of the stack are arranged in the housing such that the end regions with the cell connectors face toward the end face of the housing;
wherein the battery cell module further comprises at least one sealing element or a plurality of sealing elements, which sealingly abuts or abut, firstly, the end regions of the battery cells and, secondly, the separating elements;
wherein the cell connectors protrude from at least one sealing element or sealing elements.
Lica teaches:
wherein the battery cells each comprise at least one cell connector protruding out of the respective battery cell at one end region of the respective battery cell (col. 5, lin. 16-25; col. 6, lin. 11-19; col. 7, lin. 1-8; col. 8, lin. 1-5);
wherein the battery cells of the stack are arranged in the housing such that the end regions with the cell connectors face toward the end face of the housing (col. 5, lin. 16-25; col. 6, lin. 11-19; col. 7, lin. 1-8; col. 8, lin. 1-5);
wherein the battery cell module further comprises at least one sealing element or a plurality of sealing elements, which sealingly abuts or abut, firstly, the end regions of the battery cells and, secondly, the separating elements (Lica: col. 6, lin. 20-39; Lorenz: [0003], [0016]);
wherein the cell connectors protrude from at least one sealing element or sealing elements (col. 6, lin. 10-24).
Lorenz and Lica are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the battery module of Lorenz to include the cell connectors, guide elements, and sealing elements of Lica. The motivation to combine would have been to provide electrical connection between the battery cells while maintaining the cells in a secured and sealed arrangement and permitting controlled venting of gases from the battery cells. Lica specifically provides guide elements for positioning the cell connectors and sealing elements around the gas venting openings of the battery cells (Lica, claim 1, 6-8).
The motivation to combine would have been to provide electrical interconnection of the battery cells while securing the cell connectors and providing sealing around the battery-cell gas-venting openings. Lica’s sealing elements and guide elements provide these known functions and incorporating them into Lorenz’s battery-cell stack would have yielded the predictable result of an electrically connected and sealed battery module.
More particularly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Lica’s cell-connector and sealing arrangement could be incorporated into Lorenz’s stacked battery-cell arrangement because both references address the construction of battery modules containing multiple cells, and Lica’s arrangement provides the predictable benefits of electrical interconnection, cell positioning, and sealing/venting at the cell ends. The modification would therefore amount to applying Lica’s known cell-connector and sealing structures to Lorenz’s known cell stack and separating-device arrangement, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Lorenz and Lica teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lorenz further teaches the battery cells are prismatic cells ([0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Lorenz and Lica teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. The combination of Lorenz and Lica teach the battery module of claim 1. Lorenz further teaches a battery for a motor vehicle comprising the battery cell module according to claim 1 ([0015]). Lorenz and Lica are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the battery cell module from claim into a battery for a motor vehicle. Accordingly, Lorenz teaches a battery for a motor vehicle comprising the battery cell module of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Lorenz and Lica teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. The combination of Lorenz and Lica teach the battery module of claim 1. Lorenz further teaches that the battery module is configured for use in a motor vehicle ([0015]). Lorenz and Lica are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle to comprise the battery module of claim 1.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz, in view of Stude et al. (US 20230035826), hereinafter Stude.
Regarding claim 3, Lorenz and Lica teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lorenz teaches separating elements ([0003], [0016]). Lorenz fails to teach each separating element is a flat separating element which has a substantially two-dimensional flat construction with an extended two-dimensional extent and compared with the two-dimensional extent, a thin third extent in a direction perpendicular to the two-dimensional extent, wherein the separating element is configured compressible in the third extent.
Stude teaches each separating element is a flat separating element which has a substantially two-dimensional flat construction with an extended two-dimensional extent and compared with the two-dimensional extent, a thin third extent in a direction perpendicular to the two-dimensional extent, wherein the separating element is configured compressible in the third extent (Abstract, [0034], [0093]). Specifically, Stude teaches a separating protection element having a substantially flat, extended construction for placement between adjacent cells. Stude further teaches that the protection element is compressible in its thickness direction. Compressibility permits the protection element to accommodate expansion or swelling of the battery cells.
Lorenz and Stude are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the cell-separating device of Lorenza to include the flat, compressible construction taught by Stude. The motivation to combine would have been to provide a separating element capable of accommodating swelling or expansion of the adjacent battery cells while maintaining thermal insulation between the cells. Stude expressly recognizes that compressibility of a flat protection element allows the element to adapt to installation conditions and to accommodate changes in the dimensions of individual battery cells.
Regarding claim 4, Lorenz and Stude teach the limitations of claim 3, as stated above. Lorenz teaches separating elements ([0003], [0016]). Lorenz fails to teach the separating element is three-ply structure with two substantially incompressible fire protection layers as outer layers and a compressible intermediate layer arranged between the outer layers. Stude teaches a separating/protection element having a three-layer construction, including two outer carrier layers providing burst protection and an intermediate fiber layer (Claim 8, [0064-0067], [0085]). Stude further teaches that the intermediate layer is compressible, while the outer carrier layers provide mechanical and thermal protection. Stude further teaches heat-resistant materials for the carrier layers, including mica or metal, and compressible fiber layer (Claim 8, [0064-0067], [0085]). Lorenz and Stude are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the separating element of Lorenz to include the three-layer-fire-protection construction taught by Stude. The motivation to combine would have been to improve the fire and thermal protection provided between adjacent battery cells while retaining the compressibility of the separating element to accommodate cell expansion.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz, in view of Cheng et al. (WO 2021196200), hereinafter Cheng.
Regarding claim 5, Lorenz and Lica teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lorenz teaches a battery module comprising a housing a plurality of battery cells and cell-separating devices arranged alternately in a stacking direction, such that a cell-separating device is positioned between adjacent battery cells. Lorenz further teaches that the cell-separating devices form part of the stacker battery-cell structure within the housing ([0058-0064]). Lorenz fails to teach at least one sealing element is arranged to be pushed onto end regions of the separating elements, such that the sealing element both abuts the respective separating element and, on both sides, also protrudes from the respective separating element in a direction toward the adjacently arranged end region of a battery cell and abuts the end region of the adjacently arranged battery cell.
Cheng teaches a sealing element associated with a separating element, wherein the sealing element receives an end region of the separating element in a receptacle or slot (Claim 9, [0031-0034]). Cheng further teaches that the sealing element extends laterally from the separating element and forms a planar abutment surface for sealingly abutting the end region of an adjacently arranged battery cell. Cheng therefore teaches the claimed arrangement in which the sealing element is positioned on the end region of the separating element and extends toward the adjacent battery cell to provide a sealing engagement.
Lorenz and Cheng are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the battery module of Lorenz to include the sealing element arrangement of Cheng. The motivation to combine would have been to provide a sealing engagement between the separating elements and the adjacent battery cells, thereby improving sealing of the cell interfaces while maintaining the separating function between adjacent cells. Cheng’s sealing element is specifically configured to receive the end region of the separating element and extend toward the adjacent battery cell to form a planar sealing surface. Applying this known sealing arrangement to the separating devices of Lorenz would have provided the predictable benefit of sealing the interfaces between the separating devices and adjacent battery cells.
Regarding claim 6, Lorenz and Cheng teach the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Lorenz teaches a battery module comprising a housing a plurality of battery cells and cell-separating devices arranged alternately in a stacking direction, such that a cell-separating device is positioned between adjacent battery cells. Lorenz further teaches that the cell-separating devices form part of the stacker battery-cell structure within the housing ([0058-0064]). Lorenz fails to teach:
the sealing element is arranged to be pushed over the end regions of the separating elements and over the end regions of the battery cells;
a plurality of the sealing elements are each arranged to be pushed over an end region of a separating element and sealing abut the end regions of the adjacently arranged battery cells.
Cheng teaches a sealing element that receives the end region of the separating element in a receptable or slot, such that the sealing element is positioned over the end region of the separating element ([0038-0040]). Cheng further teaches that the sealing element extends from the separating element toward the adjacent battery cell and forms a planar surface that abuts the end region of adjacent battery cell (Claim 9, [0030-0032]). Cheng further illustrates embodiments having two separating elements and corresponding sealing elements positioned at the ends of adjacent battery cells.
Lorenz and Cheng are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the battery module of Lorenz to include the sealing elements of Cheng at the end regions of the separating elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the battery module of Lorenz to include the sealing elements of Cheng at the end regions of the separating elements. The motivation to combine would have been to provide a sealing interface between each separating element and the adjacent battery cells, thereby preventing undesirable passage through the interfaces between the cells and separating elements and providing a controlled structure at the ends of the cells.
The modification would have been a predictable application of Cheng’s known sealing arrangement to Lorenz’s known plurality of separating elements. Because Lorenz already positions a plurality of separating elements between adjacent battery cells, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to provide Cheng’s sealing element at the respective ends of the separating elements resulting in a plurality of sealing elements each positioned over an end region of a respective separating element and sealingly abutting the end regions of the adjacent battery cells.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz in view of Lica, and in further view Stude.
Regarding claim 7, Lorenz and Lica teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lorenz teaches a battery module comprising a housing a plurality of battery cells and cell-separating devices arranged alternately in a stacking direction, such that a cell-separating device is positioned between adjacent battery cells. Lorenz fails to teach at least one sealing element has, in a region of the end regions of the battery cells, at least one outgassing point and/or at least one predetermined breaking point for emergence of hot gases from one of the battery cells during a thermal event in a battery cell.
Lica teaches a battery submodule having a plurality of battery cells with gas-venting/bursting openings and sealings elements associated with the battery cells. Lica teaches that the sealing elements surround the gas-venting openings and permit gases escaping from the battery cells to be discharged (col. 5, lin. 33-41). Lica further teaches a bursting opening through which excess pressure can escape from the cell housing.
Stude teaches a battery-cell protection structure having a venting/pressure-relief function for thermal events ([0012-0014]). Stude’s multilayer protection technology is configured for use between battery cells and includes vent protection and pressure relief during thermal runaway, allowing gases and particles to escape while limiting the propagation of heat and fire to neighboring cells.
Lorenz, Lica, and Stude are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the battery module of Lorenz to include the sealing and gas-venting structure taught by Lica and the thermal-event venting structure taught by Stude. The motivation to combine would have been to provide a controlled path for gases generated during a thermal event while maintaining separation and thermal protection between adjacent battery cells. Lica provides known gas-venting and sealing structures, while Stude provides known vent protection and pressure-relief structures for thermal runaway. The combination would therefore have predictably provided Lorenz’s battery-cell stack with a sealing element having an outgassing point and/or predetermined breaking point through while hot gases could escape during a thermal event.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz in view of Stude, and in further view Cheng.
Regarding claim 8, Lorenz and Lica teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lorenz teaches a battery module comprising a housing a plurality of battery cells and cell-separating devices arranged alternately in a stacking direction, such that a cell-separating device is positioned between adjacent battery cells. Lorenz fails to teach the sealing element comprises a plastic material, a foam material, a high temperature-resistant plastic material or a high temperature-resistant foam material.
Stude teaches multilayer battery protection structures positioned between battery cells and formed from materials providing thermal and fire protection. Stude teaches temperature- and fire-resistant materials for protecting battery cells during thermal runaway and further teaches multilayer structures used between battery cells (Claim 8, [0064-0067], [0085]).
Cheng teaches a sealing element associated with a separating element, wherein the sealing element can be formed from plastic, foam, rubber, and high-temperature-resistant plastic or foam material ([0033]).
Lorenz, Stude, and Cheng are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the battery module of Lorenz to include the protective/sealing structure and material characteristics taught by Stude and Cheng. The motivation to combine would have been to provide a sealing and separating structure capable of maintaining a seal between adjacent battery cells while withstanding the elevated temperatures associated with a battery thermal event. Stude provides the motivation for using heat- and fire-resistant protection between cells, while Cheng provides known sealing-element materials, including plastic, foam, and high-temperature-resistant plastic or foam. The combination would therefore have predictably resulted in a sealing element formed from one of the claimed materials.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz in view of Kellner et al. (US 20180261898), hereinafter Kellner.
Regarding claim 9, Lorenz and Lica teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lorenz teaches a battery module comprising a housing a plurality of battery cells and cell-separating devices arranged alternately in a stacking direction, such that a cell-separating device is positioned between adjacent battery cells. Lorenze fails to teach the housing is an extruded section with at least one chamber for receiving the stack.
Kellner teaches a battery housing formed as an extruded section having at least one chamber configured to receive a battery-cell arrangement (Abstract, Claim 1, Fig. 1, module housing 6). Lorenz and Kellner are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the housing of Lorenz to include the extruded-section and chamber configuration taught by Kellner. The motivation to combine would have been to provide a housing that can be manufactured efficiently while providing a defined chamber for receiving and retaining the battery-cell stack. Extruded sections provide a known and predictable way of forming elongated battery-module housings with internal chambers. Applying Kellner’s known extruded housing construction to Lorenz’s battery-cell stack would therefore have yielded the predictable result of a battery module having an extruded housing section with a chamber receiving the stack.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights