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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 4, Lines 14-15: “up to the final outlet on the of the outside the passenger compartment.” should be rewritten as “up to the final outlet on the outside of the passenger compartment.”
Page 13, Line 2: The word “nor” should be replaced with the word “not”
Page 21, Line 2: “the dissipator element 21, whose section is L-shaped” is incorrect and should be rewritten as “the dissipator element 21, whose section is S-shaped”. This section refers to the dissipator element 21 as seen in Figure 5, which has an S-shape. The S-shape is referred to later in the specification on page 22, line 18.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 12 imparts limitations for a road vehicle comprising four wheels, at least one pair of driving wheels, an electric or hybrid drive system, and a drive train comprising a battery pack. However, the specification only describes a road vehicle comprising a battery pack and provides no mention of the other limitations.
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 3-5, 7-9, and 11-12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance,
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “a thickness between 0.02 mm and 3mm”, and the claim also recites “in particular between 0.1 mm and 1 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 8 recites the broad recitation “the variation in thickness between the first portion and the second portion is equal to or greater than 20% of the thickness of the coating layer”, and the claim also recites “in particular equal to or greater than 50%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 11 recites the broad recitation “dielectric strength of 2.5 kV or more”, and the claim also recites “in particular 5 kV” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 11 recites the broad recitation “400 W/mK or more”, and the claim also recites “in particular 750 W/mK” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 8 and Claim 9 are dependent claims of Claim 7 and so inherit the indefiniteness rejection of Claim 7.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "side surface (SL)" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “lateral surface (SL)” appears in line 3 of the claim. It should be noted that “lateral surface (SL)” does not appear in the specification, but “side surface (SL)” appears throughout the specification. It is recommended to replace “lateral surface (SL)” in line 3 with “side surface (SL)”, which would overcome this rejection and align with the specification. Without correction, this rejection also applies to Claim 4, which is dependent on Claim 3.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "drive train" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 4-5, 7-8, and 11, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Additionally, Claim 11 is found to be indefinite for the following reason. Claim 11 establishes a range of values for the dielectric strength of the coating layer in units of kV. However, dielectric strength is understood as a measurement of voltage over distance, for example, kV/mm. Without an included unit of length, it is unclear what the value of the limitation is or if it references another characteristic entirely. For the purpose of further examination, the units of dielectric strength will be interpreted as being kV/mm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liebenow (DE 102014211821 A1). A version of this document translated by Espacenet will be used for reference.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2,
Liebenow teaches a coating layer (second coating 22) applied to the surface of a first coating 14 or applied to an inner surface corresponding to the surface of an electrochemical cell (battery cell housing 12, battery cell 10; Paragraph [0043]). The electrochemical cells are arranged within an inner portion of a battery pack (battery module 100a, Paragraph [0040]) and the coating layer is comprised of boron nitride (Paragraph [0017]).
Regarding Claim 3,
Liebenow teaches the vehicular battery pack according to claim 2, and further describes embodiments of the electrochemical cells 10 as prismatic cells or as having a conical shape (Paragraph [0042]). In relation to Fig. 2a, the battery housing 12 of the conical electrochemical cell 10 comprises a lateral surface of two main faces (left and right surfaces) and two secondary faces (front and back surfaces), two base surfaces (top and bottom surfaces), and two terminals (battery terminals 16) projected from one of the base surfaces.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4,
Liebenow teaches the vehicular battery pack according to claim 3, further comprising the coating layer 22 at least partially, or substantially completely, covering the lateral surface of the battery housing 12 of the electrochemical cell 10 (Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 5,
Liebenow teaches the vehicular battery pack according to claim 2 and teaches the battery pack 100 comprising electrochemical cells 10 arranged adjacent and parallel to one another (Fig. 2a). Liebenow further teaches the second coating 22 arranged between adjacent electrochemical cells. In this embodiment, the coating layer itself acts as a set of dissipator elements arranged between planar electrochemical cells which comprise at least one inner surface at which the coating layer is arranged.
Regarding Claim 10,
Liebenow teaches the vehicular battery pack of claim 1, wherein the coating layer 22 may be applied as a paint (Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 12,
Liebenow teaches the vehicular battery pack according to claim 1, as well as its potential use in hybrid or electric vehicles. Although silent on specifically stating the hybrid or electric vehicle comprising four wheels (including a pair of driving wheels), an electronic or hybrid drive system, and a drive train comprising a battery pack, these are standard features of a hybrid or electric vehicles and are well-known by those in the art.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bradwell et al (US 12142735 B1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6,
Bradwell teaches a battery pack 500 comprised of an outer structure and inner portion (housing interior 306), wherein the inner portion contains a coating layer comprised of boron nitride arranged along one or more inner surfaces (Paragraphs (78)). Additionally, Bradwell teaches the battery pack 500 comprises one or more busbars 535 (Paragraphs (92) and (103)) as seen in FIG. 5.
PNG
media_image2.png
444
461
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebenow in view of Yang et al (US 20150236386 A1).
Regarding Claim 7,
Liebenow teaches the vehicular battery pack according to claim 1, but is silent on specific dimensions of the thickness of the coating layer 22.
However, Yang teaches the use of an electrically insulating, thermally conductive film comprised of boron nitride with a thickness of 50-1000 µm (Paragraphs [0060-0061]). Yang further teaches a thickness within this range has sufficiently strong dielectric strength for the applied voltage and tolerates abrasions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thickness of the coating layer 22 taught by Liebenow to be between 0.02 mm and 3 mm for the reasons described by Yang.
Regarding Claim 8,
In view of Yang, Liebenow teaches the vehicular battery pack according to claim 7 and further teaches the coating layer 22 may be applied with a variable thickness (Paragraph [0012]). As seen in Fig. 3a, the coating layer 22 is applied in a thickness gradient to the inner surface 12 of very little coating at the top and substantially more coating at the bottom so that the outer dimensions of the battery housing 12 correspond to a prismatic design (Paragraph [0044]). As the first portion and second portion are not limited to a specific area, any two areas of the inner surface which have a variation of thickness greater than or equal to 20% of the thickness of the coating layer 22 may be used to meet the language of the claim.
PNG
media_image3.png
408
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9,
In view of Yang, Liebenow teaches the vehicular battery pack according to claim 7. As disclosed in the instant application, angular portions are described as the corners and edges of components, at which, points of heat accumulation occur. Liebenow does not teach an increased thickness of the coating layer at these regions.
However, Yang teaches a coating layer including a thermally conductive film of varying thickness for the purpose of improving heat transfer and battery performance (Paragraphs [0005] and [0058-0061]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply a greater thickness of the coating layer in the angular portions of the inner surfaces as part of routine optimization to increase heat transfer and improve battery performance.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebenow in view of Bellani et al (IT 202100013169 A1).
Regarding Claim 11,
Liebenow teaches the vehicular battery pack of claim 1, but does not teach a dielectric strength or a thermal conductivity of the coating layer 22.
However, Bellani teaches a coating system comprising a layer of hexagonal boron nitride with a thermal conductivity greater than 700 W/mK and a dielectric strength greater than 1MV/cm (or 100 kV/mm). Bellani discloses protecting metal and plastic substrates used in electronics from degradation caused by, in part, high temperatures. The single-layer hexagonal boron nitride is characterized by greater thermal conductivity and dielectric strength than multi-layer hexagonal boron nitride, therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the coating system of Bellani to protect against thermal runaway of an electrochemical system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M KNOWLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/KEVIN M KNOWLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights