VEHICLE BATTERY PACK CONTAINING BORON NITRIDE AND RELATIVE VEHICLE
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 5/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following limitations listed below must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Dissipator element (22)
Dissipator element (22) comprising a busbar (16)
Dissipator element (21) supporting the busbar (16)
Contact area (AC) having an extension less than the coated area (20)
Coating layer (17) having varying thickness
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2-11 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.
Claim 2 discloses “[two main surfaces] at at least part of one of which at least part of the coating layer (17) is disposed.” The wording of this claim is very convoluted and needs to be revised as it is unclear where/how the coating layer is disposed.
Claim 3 discloses “a cooling system (18) comprising in turn a first portion (24) arranged in contact with the coating layer (17) in a contact area (AC), in particular included in the coated area (20).” The wording of this claim is unclear as it implies the first portion is part of the coated area which makes no structural sense.
Claims 4-11 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for their dependence on claim 3.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barlow et al. (US 5,441,825) and further in view of Yun et al. (US 2020/0058942 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Barlow et al. teach a battery pack (1) (Abstract) comprising one or more electrochemical cells (5) (Abstract discloses a multicell battery.), each provided with two electrical terminals (9) (Fig. 1, element 32 discloses a terminal. Further, Abstract discloses one of the battery terminals.);
wherein at least one of the two electrical terminals (9) (Figs. 1 and 5, element 32) comprises a coating layer (17) (Figs. 1 and 5, element 38), which is at least partially arranged in a coated area (20) of at least part of at least one of the two electrical terminals (9) (Figs. 1 and 5, elements 36 and 37); and that the coating layer (17) comprises boron nitride (Col. 5, lines 19-32 discloses element 38 comprises boron nitride.).
However, Barlow et al. do not disclose the battery pack is a vehicular battery pack.
Yun et al. teach an electrode for a lithium secondary battery including a protective layer (Abstract). The protective layer is located on a current collector and comprises a thermally conductive material such as boron nitride (Paragraph 0023). The battery pack can also be used in an electrical vehicle application (Paragraph 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the invention of Barlow in a vehicle application like Yun in order to improve performance and reliability of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Barlow and Yun et al. teach the vehicular battery pack according to claim 1. Further, Barlow et al. teach wherein at least one of the two electrical terminals (9) comprises two main surfaces (19) at at least part of one of which at least part of the coating layer (17) is disposed (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Barlow and Yun et al. teach the vehicular battery pack according to claim 1. Further, Yun et al. teach wherein the coating layer (17) is configured to have a thermal conductivity of 400 W/mK or more, in particular 750 W/mK (Paragraph 0022 discloses 100-500 W/mK.).
However, Yun et al. do not teach the coating layer is configured to have a dielectric strength of 2.5 kV or more, in particular 5 kV.
However, Barlow and Yun both disclose the material comprises the claimed boron nitride.
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Barlow and Yun et al. teach the vehicular battery pack according to claim 1. However, they do not specifically disclose wherein the coating layer (17) comprises one or more layers of paint.
However, the as-filed specification describes the coating layer comprises one or more layers of paint, which comprises (is based on) boron nitride. In other words, the paint comprises boron nitride in its chemical formulation at least in part (the remaining part is a solvent, part of the solution in which the boron nitride is soluble).
Yun et al. disclose formation of the protective layer comprises mixing PVDF/NMP (a binder and solvent) and BN/NMP solution. This matrix is essentially the same as to what the Applicant is defining a “paint”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barlow with Yun in order to improve capacity retention.
Claims 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barlow et al. (US 5,441,825) and Yun et al. (US 2020/0058942 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Syed et al. (US 2016/0336627 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Barlow and Yun et al. teach the vehicular battery pack according to claim 1. However, they do not teach comprising a cooling system (18) comprising in turn a first portion (24) arranged in contact with the coating layer (17) in a contact area (AC), in particular included in the coated area (20).
Syed et al. teach a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1, element 12) and an intumescent layer proximate to at least one battery module (Fig. 1, element 16). The intumescent layer can include boron nitride (Paragraph 0005). Further, a cooling system is in contact with the intumescent layer (Fig. 3 shows a cooling fin, element 30, in contact with the intumescent layer, element 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barlow and Yun with the cooling fins of Syed in order to reduce the risk of fire.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Barlow, Yun, and Syed et al. teach the vehicular battery pack according to claim 3. Further, Syed et al. teach wherein the cooling system (18) comprises a dissipator element (21), in particular metallic, configured to remove heat from at least one of the two electrical terminals (9), the dissipator element (21) comprising the first portion (24) (Paragraph 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barlow and Yun with the cooling fins of Syed in order to reduce the risk of fire.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barlow et al. (US 5,441,825) and Yun et al. (US 2020/0058942 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Selover et al. (US 4,381,597 A).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Barlow and Yun et al. teach the vehicular battery pack in according with claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the coating layer (17) comprises a thickness between 0.02 mm and 3 mm, in particular between 0.1 mm and 1 mm.
Selover et al. teach a battery comprising a current conducting rod (Fig. 1, element 19) coated with a boron nitride layer (Fig. 1, element 32). Further, the boron nitride layer is 0.5-0.76 mm thick (Col. 5, lines 30-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barlow and Yun with Selover in order to prevent electrolyte leakage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claims 5-11 is not disclosed in the prior art of record. Further, any modification would teach away from the prior art of record and not present a prima facie case of obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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 Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 August 26th, 2026
Prosecution Insights