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 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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites “the outer cover” without antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 11-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korean Patent Publication No. KR 20170135469 to Eichhorn et al., citing to the enclosed machine translation (“Eichhorm”). Regarding claims 1, 7, and 17, Eichhorn discloses vehicles comprising as an energy storage system for powering the vehicle a battery module comprising a stack of battery cells held inside a module case. A cover plate of the module case includes a gas discharge opening that is covered by one or more filters. Id. at paragraph [0049]. The filter is configured such that it will detach if the pressure applied as at or above a predetermined amount. Id. at paragraph [0058]. When detached, the interior of the battery module is accessible, thereby promoting maintenance and repair of the inside of the battery.
Further regarding claim 4, the filter slides into a groove in which it may be attached via adhesive. Thus, it may also be detached by, for example, cutting the adhesive and sliding out of the groove.
Further regarding claim 11-13, The groove into which the filter fits includes an inner face of the cover plate that faces into the interior of the module case corresponding to the first member; an outer face of the cover plate facing the exterior of the module case corresponding to the second member, and the body of the plate connecting those two faces corresponding to the third member. Each of those members has a corresponding hole therethrough for mounting the filter element (350) and allowing gas passage.
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) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichhorn.
Further regarding claim 14, providing a plurality of battery packs with their cells in electrical connection is considered to be nothing more than an obvious duplication of parts to allow for a greater capacity of a power source.
Further regarding claim 15, nothing precludes the packs from being stacked in a vertical direction, so the obvious plurality of packs can be stacked in a vertical direction as claimed.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichhorn in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0031710 to Kitano (“Kitano”). Eichhorn is applied as described above. Eichhorn discloses generally that various electronics are included inside its battery module, but does not disclose the details of those commonly included features of a vehicle battery module. Kitano is also directed towards battery modules for use in vehicles and discloses that part of the electronics included in such battery modules is a coupling unit having one or more fuses, where each fuse is connected to the battery stack of the module and via a wire to an electronic component of the vehicle. While the improvement of Kitano involves placing the fuses/wires on an exterior of the case, Kitano discloses that it was common at the time to include such features on an interior of the battery case, where the fuses were accessed/repaired upon opening the case, such as by removal of the filter of Eichhorn.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichhorn in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0328389 to Lloyd (“Lloyd”). Regarding claim 8, like Eicchorn, Lloyd is directed to a vent on a battery pack to prevent ingress of material from outside the battery pack to the interior of the battery pack, and to prevent egress of unwanted ejected and protection against heat/flame being ejected from the battery. Lloyd discloses that to achieve that goal, a multilayer filter may be used where one or more of those layers is made of a metal gauze/mesh material with flame retardancy being an important consideration for the materials chosen. Accordingly, to provide fire safety, protect against/absorb the heat being ejected from the battery, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have had reason to make the filter of Eichhorn from the three-or-more layered metal gauze materials of Lloyd. Further regarding claim 10, Lloyd discloses the porosity of the gauze is chosen in part to contain shrapnel being ejected from the battery. Eichhorn discloses that the filter is used in part to prevent exterior materials from entering into the battery. Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have reason to choose materials where the pores are largest in an interior and become smaller towards the exterior such that the energy of ejected shrapnel is absorbed, and shrapnel is contained, and such that materials from the outside are prevented from penetrating into the filter where they may come in contact with the extremely hot shrapnel.
Further regarding claim 9, Lloyd discloses that an inner layer of the filter may be a microporous material comprising mineral fibers. Eicchorn discloses various plastic materials for use as its filter. Thus, providing a fiber/glass reinforced plastic material for an inner layer of the filter is considered to be nothing more than the use of commonly known materials for their intended purpose.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art is silent regarding use of the recited locking ring and recited concave part to hold a filter in place.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT P MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7531. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights