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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-14 are pending and presented for examination on the merit.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because “intersection” in line 11 should be changed to “intersecting”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0123423 to Wang et al. (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 12, Wang et al. teaches a battery module or battery pack P, comprising:
first and second sub-battery modules, first battery group 3 and second battery group 4, spatially separated to each other by a central wall or cross beam 13 disposed therebetween (all figures; [0075]; [0077]; [0092]);
a hollow venting passage, e.g., first passage 133 or second passage 134, formed inside the central wall or cross beam 13 configured to vent at least gas occurring in any of a plurality of battery cells stacked inside the first or second sub-battery modules outside of the battery module (abstract; Figs. 5 and 7-11; [0082]; [0105]; [0110]),
wherein the plurality of battery cells is stacked in a first direction (Y-direction in Fig. 4), and the first and second sub-battery modules are disposed in a second direction (X-direction in Fig. 4) intersecting the first direction,
wherein the central wall includes a frame formed by two side plates 132 and top plate 131 extending in the first direction (Figs. 4, 5, 7-11; [0089]), and
wherein the hollow venting passage penetrates the frame in a third direction (Z-direction in Fig. 4) intersecting the first direction and the second direction as the hollow venting passage follows the arrows in Fig. 10 (Figs. 2-5 and 8-11; [0109-111]).
Below is Fig. 8 of Wang et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
193
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the claim term “upper” is relative. When the battery pack P of Wang et al. is viewed up-side-down, base plate 11 corresponds to an upper cover disposed on upper sides of the first and second sub-battery modules and the central wall and coupled to the center wall, and wherein the upper cover includes one or more venting holes or exhaust passage 112 (Figs. 2-5 and 8-11; [0109-111]). The battery pack P is operable up-side-down.
Regarding claim 14, the one or more venting holes or exhaust passage 112 are formed at a portion of the upper cover or base plate 11 overlapping the center wall or cross beam 13 (Figs. 2-5 and 8-11; [0109-111]).
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, 4, 5, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over WO 2022/270746 to Shin et al. (English equivalent US 2023/0327278 used for citation, both cited by Applicant), in view of WO 2022/004997 to Jo et al. (English equivalent US 2023/0099554 used for citation, latter cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Shin et al. teaches a battery module 100 comprising:
first and second sub-battery modules, e.g. first group battery cells G1 and second group battery cells G2, respectively comprising a cell stack including a plurality of battery cells 110, and a bus bar assembly disposed at least one side of the cell stack (Fig. 5; [0054]; [0057]; [0060]); and
a central wall or firewall 130 disposed between the first and second sub-battery modules (Fig. 5; [0053]; [0057]),
wherein the plurality of battery cells is stacked in a first direction (y-direction in Fig. 5), and the first and second sub-battery modules are disposed in a second direction intersecting the first direction (x-direction in Fig. 5).
Shin et al. does not expressly teach that the central wall or firewall 130 includes a frame extending in the first direction, and a hollow venting passage penetrating the frame in a third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction.
Jo et al. also relates to a battery module and teaches that the battery module comprises first and second sub-battery modules 210 and a first partition wall 310 (central wall) disposed therebetween, wherein the first partition wall 310 includes a frame formed of vertical partition walls 311 and one or more opening holes 312’ penetrating the frame (Figs. 3, 4, 7, and 8; [0101-108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the central wall with a frame and a hollow venting passage in the battery module of Shin et al., motivated by the fact that Jo et al. demonstrates that the vertical partition walls 311 of the first partition wall 310 (central wall) forming the frame interrupt movement of flare and spark to a neighboring cell stack ([0102]; [0103]; [0107]) and the one or more opening holes 312’ guide movement of vent gas, heat, and air in the vertical direction to corresponding perforated portion 151’ of an upper cover 150, in order to rapidly discharge vent gas and air to the outside, thereby inhibiting outbreak of fire ([0068]; [0102]; [0105]). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results substituting an element with a known alternative structure and it would have been within the abilities of the skilled artisan to make modifications accordingly. Once incorporated, the frame would have extended in the first direction in the battery module of Shin et al. and the hollow venting passage would have penetrated the frame in the third direction.
Regarding claim 4, a plurality of the hollow venting passage would have been disposed in the first direction in the battery module of Shin et al., as Jo et al. teaches that the one or more opening holes 312’ are disposed along the length of the first partition wall 310 (central wall) (Figs. 3, 4, 7, and 8; [0101-108]).
Regarding claim 5, Shin et al. teaches that a surface of the first and second sub-battery modules facing the central wall respectively has a bus bar assembly (Fig. 5; [0054]; [0057]; [0060]), but does not expressly teach an insulating cover disposed between one surface of the first and second sub-battery modules and one surface of the central wall facing each other at least in the second direction.
Jo et al. also relates to a battery module and teaches that the battery module comprises a front cover 130 and rear cover 140 made of a heat-resistant plastic material (corresponding to the claimed insulating cover) ([0072]; [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed insulating cover, motivated by the fact that Jo et al. demonstrates that insulating covers fix busbars, perform electrical insulation between the case and the busbars, and protect the cell stack from external impact ([0072]; [0073]). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results applying a known element to a similar product.
Regarding claim 9, Shin et al. teaches a cover member including upper cover 122 and/or gas venting channel 150 covering the first and second sub-battery modules and the central wall, and wherein the central wall is coupled to the cover member (Figs. 5 and 11; [0055]; [0058]; [0059]).
Regarding claim 10, Shin et al. teaches that upper cover 122 is disposed on upper sides of the first and second sub-battery modules and the central wall, and wherein the upper cover includes one or more venting holes, e.g. opening 123a and/or opening 123b, formed along the first direction (Figs. 5 and 11; [0055]; [0058]; [0059]).
Regarding claim 11, Shin et al. teaches that the venting holes or opening 123a and/or opening 123b are disposed to overlap at least one of the central wall and the bus bar assembly in the third direction as suggested by Fig. 11.
Claims 2, 3, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. and Jo et al. as applied to claim 1, in view of CN 112787020 to Zhu et al. (English equivalent US 2022/0294048 used for citation; both cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 2, Shin et al. teaches that the firewall 130 may be made of, for example, a fire-resistant material or a stiff material, and may have a sheet of fire-resistant material (for example, mica) attached to two surfaces ([0059]) and Jo et al. teaches that the partition wall 300 is configured to interrupt or inhibit movement of flare, spark, vent gas, and heat generated when thermal runaway occurs ([0061]; [0099]; [0100]; [0102]).
The prior arts do not expressly teach that the frame includes a material having a melting point of 600 degrees Celsius or more and is capable of enduring a pressure of 3 bars or more.
Zhu et al. also relates to a battery module and teaches that side beams 116 and 117 made of, e.g. aluminum alloy materials, surround sides of battery modules and provide exhaust ports each communicating with a smoke discharge channel and a respective module sub-compartment (Fig. 1; [0012]; [0035]; [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed material for the frame of the central wall in the prior art battery module, motivated by the fact that Zhu et al. demonstrates that aluminum alloy material can withstand high temperatures and smoke in case of thermal runaway ([0035]; [0038]) and aluminum alloy materials having a melting point of 600 degrees Celsius or more and capable of enduring a pressure of 3 bars or more would have been selected through routine experimentation for the frame of the prior art battery module, in order to handle the thermal runaway conditions and inhibit fire outbreak in the prior art battery module. The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results using a known material to make a known product.
Regarding claim 3, Shin et al. teaches that the firewall 130 may be made of, for example, a fire-resistant material or a stiff material, and may have a sheet of fire-resistant material (for example, mica) attached to two surfaces ([0059]).
Although the prior arts do not expressly teach a protection member on a surface of the frame, and wherein the protection member having a melting point greater than that of the frame, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the protection member such as mica sheets on a surface of the frame in the prior art battery module, because the skilled artisan would have appreciated strengthening the fire-resistant property of the frame of the central wall, which is exposed to heat and gas released by a burst battery cell, so that the central wall maintains its structural integrity while discharging the heat and gas to the outside of the battery module. Mica has a higher melting point than aluminum alloy of the frame.
Regarding claim 6, Shin et al. does not expressly teach that a heat insulating member disposed between the insulating cover and the central wall.
Zhu et al. also relates to a battery module and teaches that module heat-insulating elements 112 arranged between adjacent battery modules 100 may comprise a heat-insulating material with good heat-insulating performance and high strength, and can withstand an impact of a high-temperature gas (Fig. 1; [0036]; [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention, because Zhu et al. demonstrates that such heat insulating members are used between battery modules (Fig. 1; [0036]; [0038]) and the skilled artisan would have obtained expected results using the heat insulating members with good heat-insulating performance and high strength to insulate and protect the central wall and first and second sub-battery modules that are facing each other in case a high-temperature gas occurs.
Regarding claim 7, Shin et al. does not expressly teach a heat insulating member disposed to cover an upper portion of the cell stack.
Zhu et al. also relates to a battery module and teaches a top assembly 115 made of a heat-insulating and fireproof material disposed to cover an upper portion of battery modules 100 (Fig. 1; [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention, motivated by the fact that Zhu et al. demonstrates that the heat insulating members above the modules make it possible to, when a cell in a module sub-compartment is subjected to thermal runaway, effectively prevent a high-temperature mixture and flame sprayed from the cell from penetrating through the heat-insulating top cover allowing oxygen to enter a diffusion process, while preventing the high-temperature gas from spreading to other modules from above ([0037]). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results applying known materials to a known product.
Regarding claim 8, Shin et al. does not expressly teach heat insulating members disposed at a predetermined interval between the plurality of battery cells in the first direction.
Zhu et al. also relates to a battery module and teaches cell heat-insulating elements 111 being arranged between adjacent cells (abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; [0016]; [0033]; [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the claimed heat insulating members between battery cells in the prior art battery module, motivated by the fact that Zhu et al. demonstrates that the heat insulating members between battery cells can not only absorb thermal expansion and contraction of the cell, but can also effectively delay or prevent the propagation of heat from the single cell in which thermal runaway occurs to an adjacent cell ([0038]). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results applying a known element to a known product.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,027,723. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims 1 and 12 of the reference patent require all of the limitations of the present claims 1 and 12, respectively. Claims 2-4, 6-9, 5, 10, and 11 of the reference patent contain the same subject matters as the present claims 2-11, 13, and 14, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/Heng M. Chan/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights